GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 42.6m
56
pts
16
reb
15
ast
Impact
+41.8

An absolute masterclass in offensive orchestration resulted in a historically dominant impact score. He systematically dismantled the opposing pick-and-roll coverage by manipulating help defenders with his eyes, generating flawless shot quality for both himself and his cutters.

Shooting
FG 15/21 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 22/23 (95.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.6m
Offense +55.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +66.5
Avg player in 42.6m -24.7
Impact +41.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Jamal Murray 42.4m
35
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-7.9

Brutal efficiency inside the arc completely offset his perimeter shot-making, as he continually forced heavily contested floaters into traffic. His inability to stay in front of his man at the point of attack further compounded the damage, leading to a surprisingly poor overall score.

Shooting
FG 12/32 (37.5%)
3PT 9/18 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 42.4m -24.5
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Peyton Watson 42.2m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Offensive passivity allowed his defender to roam freely and double-team the primary ball handlers, severely clogging the half-court offense. Even with excellent weak-side shot-blocking, his reluctance to attack closeouts created a steep negative impact on the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 42.2m -24.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

A heavy reliance on contested, early-clock perimeter jumpers derailed the offensive flow and handed the opponent easy transition run-outs. While his overall scoring volume saw a spike, the sheer number of empty possessions generated a steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 41.1m -23.7
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Spencer Jones 40.9m
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite a massive surge in offensive confidence compared to recent outings, ill-timed fouls and poor transition defense dragged his overall rating down. He repeatedly bit on pump fakes during critical fourth-quarter stretches, surrendering crucial free-throw opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 40.9m -23.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Bruce Brown 28.3m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.0

Impact cratered due to a series of miscommunications on defensive switches that surrendered a barrage of uncontested layups. He also struggled to navigate screens effectively, consistently leaving the rim unprotected and hemorrhaging points during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 28.3m -16.3
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Complete offensive invisibility and poor spacing allowed the defense to trap the ball-handler without consequence. He compounded his shooting woes by committing two costly reach-in fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early in the quarter.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 11.8m -6.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Sluggish footwork in drop coverage allowed opposing guards to walk into rhythm pull-up jumpers repeatedly. Offensively, he was easily stripped in the paint by digging defenders, turning potential scoring opportunities into fast-break points the other way.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 10.4m -6.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 5.3m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a brief but effective burst of energy by establishing deep post position and sealing his man on the glass. His disciplined verticality at the rim altered two key shots, keeping his short stint in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 5.3m -3.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 42.3m
44
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Breaking out of a recent slump, his aggressive downhill attacks forced the defense into constant rotation and generated high-value looks. His exceptional point-of-attack defense against the opposing primary creator cemented a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.0
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 42.3m -24.5
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jaden McDaniels 39.5m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

Despite highly efficient scoring that buoyed his base metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to costly live-ball turnovers and poor weak-side rotations. He consistently allowed back-door cuts in the second half, erasing the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 39.5m -22.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Julius Randle 39.4m
32
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.8

A dominant physical presence inside allowed him to dictate the tempo and generate a massive positive impact. He consistently punished mismatches in the post, while his active hands on defense disrupted passing lanes to fuel transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +26.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 39.4m -22.8
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.9

Cold perimeter shooting severely hampered the team's floor spacing, allowing defenders to pack the paint and stall the offense. While he tried to compensate with high-energy closeouts and loose-ball recoveries, the sheer volume of missed open looks dragged his net impact down.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 34.2m -19.8
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 34.0m
9
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.5

Defensive intimidation was the primary driver of his elite overall impact, as he completely deterred drives into the paint. His relentless screening and rim-running created wide-open perimeter looks for teammates, proving his value extends far beyond scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +11.6
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 34.0m -19.7
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 6
TO 0
Naz Reid 28.2m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forced shots early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive rhythm and contributed to a negative overall score. He struggled to anchor the second-unit defense, frequently getting caught out of position on pick-and-roll coverages.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.2m -16.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 22.6m
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Errant passes in transition and a tendency to over-dribble stagnated the second unit's flow, dragging his net score into the red. Opposing guards consistently targeted his slight frame on switches, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 22.6m -13.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Rushed decision-making on drives led to wild, contested attempts at the rim that fueled opponent fast breaks. His inability to bend the defense or create separation severely limited the bench unit's offensive ceiling during his stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 9.7m -5.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Operating strictly as a game manager during a brief rotation stint, his lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. He did provide a slight boost with veteran defensive positioning, but ultimately couldn't generate enough momentum to swing the needle positively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 9.6m -5.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

A quick rotational cameo yielded minimal influence on the game's trajectory. He was caught ball-watching on two separate defensive possessions, which resulted in easy baseline cuts and a slightly negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -67.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 5.3m -3.0
Impact -1.3
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
-0.1

Inserted solely for the final seconds of a quarter, leaving no time to register meaningful statistics. His negative fractional score is merely a byproduct of being on the floor during an opponent's buzzer-beating possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0