GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 40.4m
28
pts
16
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless attacks in semi-transition overwhelmed the defense and consistently collapsed the paint. He dominated the glass on both ends, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense humming. This high-motor performance dictated the physical tone of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 40.4m -21.9
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
32
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.7

Catching fire from beyond the arc stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. He didn't just settle for jumpers, actively using his shooting gravity to open up driving lanes and create for others. This lethal combination of shot-making and secondary playmaking was the engine of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 7/16 (43.8%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +26.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 38.6m -21.1
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.8m
4
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Missing every single attempt from the floor completely neutralized his otherwise stellar defensive contributions. He was an absolute menace contesting shots at the rim and securing loose balls, but the offensive black hole he created was too much to overcome. Fumbling several catchable passes in the pick-and-roll further diminished his impact.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +6.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 33.8m -18.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 30.1m
17
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+13.2

Elite point-of-attack disruption fueled a barrage of fast-break opportunities, driving his massive positive rating. He masterfully manipulated defensive shells with his eyes, throwing teammates open for high-percentage looks. His relentless activity in the passing lanes completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 30.1m -16.5
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Corey Kispert 20.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Rushing his mechanics on contested perimeter looks cratered his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to leak out in transition. He provided decent resistance on the wing, but his inability to punish closeouts severely cramped the floor. The resulting empty possessions were a major drag on the unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 20.0m -10.8
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CJ McCollum 24.5m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Dying on screens at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo and generate easy offense. His smooth shot creation provided a temporary lift, but he gave those points right back by constantly losing his man on backdoor cuts. The defensive bleeding ultimately outweighed his efficient scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 24.5m -13.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

A disastrous shooting night featuring exclusively missed perimeter looks absolutely torpedoed his net impact. Defenders completely ignored him off the ball, allowing them to crowd the paint and stifle the primary scorers. His inability to convert wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities derailed multiple offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 20.4m -11.1
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 11.6m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Excellent verticality at the rim altered several shots and provided a steadying defensive presence in limited action. He capitalized on dump-off passes with decisive finishing, avoiding the rookie mistake of forcing bad looks. This disciplined, mistake-free basketball resulted in a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 11.6m -6.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Getting bullied off his spots in the post led to low-quality attempts and a negative overall rating. While he showed flashes of competence in drop coverage, his slow processing speed on offense resulted in stalled sets. He struggled to match the physicality of the opposing frontcourt during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 10.3m -5.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 10.3m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Extreme passivity ruined his offensive utility, as he repeatedly passed up open looks to swing the ball into traffic. Without his usual floor-spacing threat, the offense bogged down during his minutes. Failing to register a single hustle play further underscored a highly unimpactful shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -83.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.3m -5.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 41.7m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him in isolation, turning his heavy minutes into a defensive liability. While his catch-and-shoot execution was flawless, the points he generated were immediately given back on the other end. Failing to contain dribble penetration completely overshadowed his offensive breakout.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 41.7m -22.7
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 30.5m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

A stark drop in offensive aggression and poor perimeter shot selection tanked his overall rating. Missing crucial rotation assignments on the weak side negated his otherwise solid hustle metrics. His inability to find a rhythm from deep forced empty possessions that bled value.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 30.5m -16.6
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
21
pts
17
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.1

Relentless interior gravity created high-value kickout opportunities, driving a massive positive box metric. He completely sealed off the paint defensively, forcing opponents into low-percentage perimeter bailouts. This physical dominance in the restricted area anchored the team's overall success.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.9
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 29.6m -16.1
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ryan Rollins 28.8m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Forcing contested midrange jumpers early in the shot clock disrupted the team's offensive flow. Despite showing excellent lateral quickness and generating deflections, his erratic decision-making as a primary ball-handler dragged his net impact into the red. A sharp decline from his usual scoring output highlighted his struggles to finish through contact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 28.8m -15.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Myles Turner 27.8m
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Surging past his recent scoring averages wasn't enough to rescue a negative overall impact score. He repeatedly lost his man on pick-and-pop coverages, bleeding points on the defensive end. Poor screen navigation ultimately cost the team momentum despite his spacing value.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 27.8m -15.1
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.5

Over-dribbling in half-court sets stalled the offense and led to late-clock bailout situations. He brought fantastic energy on the defensive glass and disrupted passing lanes, but his hesitancy to attack the paint limited his offensive value. Passing up open driving lanes ultimately stifled the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 27.8m -15.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Bobby Portis 23.6m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Capitalizing on mismatch opportunities in the post allowed him to generate highly efficient scoring possessions. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor in transition, creating early-offense advantages that spiked his overall impact. This aggressive rim-running and decisive finishing marked a massive step up from his recent performances.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 23.6m -12.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 15.2m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense kept his overall rating afloat despite a completely invisible offensive showing. He perfectly executed the defensive game plan by denying the ball to the primary initiator. However, his total refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to aggressively help off him.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 15.2m -8.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 15.1m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Flawless weak-side rotations and elite rim deterrence defined a highly impactful defensive stint. He didn't need a high usage rate to dominate, instead making his mark by blowing up pick-and-roll actions before they materialized. This disciplined positional awareness anchored the second unit perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 15.1m -8.2
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0