GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
22
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Faced relentless defensive pressure that forced him into an uncharacteristically inefficient shooting night, particularly from deep. However, his overall impact remained positive due to his sheer volume of rim pressure and ability to generate defensive gravity. Active hands and timely hustle plays helped salvage a performance where his primary weapon was neutralized.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 36.1m -18.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 30.6m
10
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

A surprisingly negative overall impact despite strong defensive positioning and excellent work on the glass. The metric was heavily penalized by poor perimeter shooting and offensive possessions that stalled out when he held the ball too long. While his rim deterrence was solid, his offensive hesitance allowed the defense to reset.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 30.6m -15.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 29.0m
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to find a consistent rhythm against set defenses, forcing several contested looks that dragged down his overall efficiency. Despite generating solid playmaking numbers and active hustle stats, the negative impact was driven by empty scoring trips and likely live-ball turnovers. His inability to finish cleanly inside the arc ultimately outweighed his peripheral contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 29.0m -14.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 28.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

A heavy reliance on low-percentage perimeter shots severely undercut his overall value, as he failed to punish defensive closeouts. The negative impact score reflects the cost of those empty possessions, which overshadowed his typically robust point-of-attack defense. His shot selection ultimately bailed out the opposing defense too often.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 28.6m -14.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
13
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.7

Dominated the interior with a highly physical performance, converting high-percentage looks and controlling the paint on both ends. His massive positive impact was fueled by elite defensive anchoring and a knack for securing contested rebounds in traffic. The ability to consistently punish mismatches inside made him a central driver of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 23.5m -11.9
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Struggled mightily to finish plays, suffering through a dismal shooting night that derailed the offensive flow during his shifts. The negative impact was directly tied to an inability to convert open looks, which allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Even solid defensive positioning couldn't make up for the sheer volume of empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 21.3m -10.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Alex Caruso 19.6m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

An absolute barrage of missed perimeter attempts completely tanked his offensive value, turning him into a liability on that end of the floor. The negative impact score was driven entirely by those empty possessions, which negated his typically excellent defensive instincts and hustle. He simply could not stop shooting despite a glaring lack of touch, defining his night as a spacing detriment.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 19.6m -9.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Delivered a massive two-way spark, highlighted by highly efficient opportunistic scoring and relentless energy. His stellar impact score was driven by elite defensive versatility and a flurry of hustle plays that consistently tilted 50/50 balls in his team's favor. Capitalized perfectly on his minutes by making quick, decisive reads on both ends.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 16.8m -8.5
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 15.1m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Failed to provide his usual floor-spacing gravity, logging a quiet shift defined by a lack of aggressive shot-hunting. The slight negative impact stems from his inability to generate meaningful offensive separation or contribute significantly to the hustle metrics. A largely invisible performance where he struggled to leave a footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.1m -7.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Snapped a streak of highly efficient outings with a disjointed performance characterized by forced shots and poor spacing. The heavy negative impact score reflects a series of stalled offensive possessions and a failure to capitalize on defensive rotations. He struggled to find his spots within the flow of the offense, leading to highly detrimental floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 14.3m -7.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged brief garbage-time minutes without managing to register a single positive statistical contribution. The slightly negative impact score is the result of simply occupying space while the opponent executed effectively. A completely forgettable stint defined by a lack of engagement at the tail end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Burned a couple of minutes at the end of the bench rotation without making any tangible offensive impact. A negligible negative score stems from a lack of involvement as the clock simply wound down. He provided basic defensive spacing but nothing more, defining his night as pure filler minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.7m -0.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Managed to squeeze a quick interior bucket into a microscopic window of playing time. The slightly positive impact reflects his ability to immediately capitalize on a broken defensive coverage during garbage time. Did exactly what was needed in his fleeting appearance by converting his lone opportunity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.7m -0.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 34.1m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.7

Offensive rhythm completely evaporated, defined by a barrage of forced perimeter attempts that tanked his efficiency. The massive negative impact score stems directly from empty possessions and a failure to generate quality looks against tight coverage. Unable to find alternate ways to contribute when the jumper wasn't falling, his floor time was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 34.1m -17.3
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 32.9m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.0

Completely dictated the pace of the game, shredding the defense with relentless downhill attacks and highly efficient perimeter shot-making. His massive impact score was fueled by elite shot creation and a flurry of disruptive hustle plays that generated extra possessions. The ability to seamlessly toggle between aggressive scoring and timely defensive rotations made this a masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 32.9m -16.5
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 31.6m
19
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.6

Excellent shot selection inside the arc drove a highly efficient scoring night, though his perimeter touch remained absent. His positive overall impact was anchored by steady playmaking and an ability to consistently break down the first line of defense. Active hands and solid positional awareness on the defensive end further solidified his productive outing.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 31.6m -16.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Harrison Barnes 30.4m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite a significant scoring surge compared to recent outings, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to defensive lapses in transition. Missed mid-range attempts and ill-timed fouls offset the value of his perimeter shot-making. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities but gave too much back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 30.4m -15.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 21.6m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Maintained his highly efficient finishing around the rim, continuing a strong pattern of capitalizing on dump-off passes. His positive impact was largely driven by active hustle plays and setting solid screens that freed up ball-handlers. Defensively, he held his ground in the paint without over-committing, providing steady if unspectacular minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 21.6m -11.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.2

Even on a night where his scoring volume dropped significantly, his sheer gravitational pull and elite rim protection anchored the team's success. The positive impact was heavily driven by dominant defensive positioning and high-value hustle plays that deterred drives. He controlled the glass effectively, proving he can dictate the game's flow without needing to dominate the shot chart.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 25.8m -13.0
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Dylan Harper 20.4m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Continued a highly reliable stretch of interior finishing, picking his spots carefully to maintain excellent efficiency. The overall impact was muted slightly by a lack of peripheral contributions, as he rarely disrupted passing lanes or generated extra possessions. Still, his disciplined shot selection ensured his minutes were a net positive for the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 20.4m -10.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

A complete offensive vanishing act severely damaged his overall impact, as he failed to convert on multiple open spot-up opportunities. The negative score was exacerbated by empty offensive trips that allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. While he provided some resistance on the perimeter, the total lack of scoring punch rendered his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 20.2m -10.2
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Provided a steadying physical presence on the wing, using his frame to secure contested boards and finish through contact. His modest positive impact was bolstered by disciplined defensive rotations, avoiding the foul trouble that sometimes plagues his aggressive style. A solid, low-mistake stint that prioritized efficiency over volume.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 17.0m -8.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A brief cameo appearance offered virtually no time to establish any rhythm or influence the game's outcome. His negligible impact score perfectly reflects a stint defined by an end-of-quarter substitution pattern rather than meaningful basketball actions. He simply logged cardio without touching the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged minimal garbage-time minutes that had zero bearing on the competitive portion of the contest. Managed a quick swing pass but otherwise just occupied space on the floor, defining his night as a pure rotational placeholder. The flat impact score is exactly what you expect from a microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Squeezed a surprising amount of positive hustle into a tiny window of playing time, actively contesting a shot and fighting for positioning. His brief appearance was a net positive simply by executing defensive assignments perfectly during his single shift. A textbook example of maximizing garbage-time minutes through disciplined effort.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Instantly boosted his impact score by decisively burying his only perimeter look during a fleeting appearance. The quick trigger and perfect execution provided a micro-burst of offensive value that defined his night. He did exactly what was asked in his limited role, maximizing his single offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A rushed perimeter attempt in limited action immediately dinged his efficiency metrics during a brief stint. The negative impact score is entirely tied to that single empty possession and a failure to register any positive hustle stats. His performance was defined by forcing the issue during garbage time instead of letting the game come to him.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0