GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 38.6m
36
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.4

Absolute offensive mastery dictated this massive positive impact, as he systematically dismantled the defense with elite shot-making and precision passing. He generated exceptionally high-quality looks from the perimeter, punishing every drop coverage he faced. The sheer gravity of his scoring threat opened up the floor, driving an astronomical box score rating.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +32.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 38.6m -18.4
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 33.3m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Timely perimeter shot-making and lockdown wing defense provided a stabilizing two-way presence. He expertly navigated screens to contest shooters, driving a highly positive defensive rating that anchored the perimeter unit. His reliable floor spacing and mistake-free execution kept the offensive engine running smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.4
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 33.3m -15.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Grayson Allen 32.0m
14
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.3

A frigid shooting night from the perimeter was salvaged by surprisingly stout defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes. He compensated for his offensive struggles by attacking closeouts to create for others, maintaining a positive box impact. His gritty point-of-attack defense against primary ball-handlers ultimately kept his overall rating in the black.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 32.0m -15.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ryan Dunn 31.3m
13
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Elite defensive versatility and relentless rebounding completely overshadowed a dreadful shooting night from beyond the arc. He consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter, generating massive defensive and hustle metrics. His ability to dominate the game's physicality without requiring offensive touches was the hallmark of this performance.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +8.0
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 31.3m -14.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 25.4m
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Imposing rim protection and vertical spacing created a highly favorable impact profile despite low usage. He altered multiple shots in the paint, forcing the opposition into low-percentage floaters and driving his defensive metrics up. Efficient finishing around the basket ensured his limited offensive touches yielded maximum value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.4m -12.0
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.2

Exceptional hustle plays and dead-eye perimeter shooting engineered a massive boost for the second unit. He constantly kept plays alive with diving efforts and smart positional awareness, driving a phenomenal hustle rating. His ability to seamlessly orchestrate the offense while spacing the floor perfectly defined a highly impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +7.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 27.4m -13.1
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 19.0m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Perfect efficiency around the rim was negated by a distinct lack of rebounding presence for a frontcourt player. He struggled to anchor the defense against physical drives, bleeding points in the paint that eroded his overall impact. A failure to secure defensive boards allowed damaging second-chance opportunities that sank his rating.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +50.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 19.0m -9.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc stalled out several offensive possessions, dragging his net impact into negative territory. While he provided solid rotational defense and active rebounding, it wasn't enough to overcome the empty offensive trips. His tendency to force contested jumpers early in the clock defined a frustrating stint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 16.8m -8.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Serviceable interior finishing provided a minor offensive bump, but a complete lack of rebounding from the center position severely limited his value. He offered virtually no rim deterrence, allowing opponents to score easily in the restricted area. The performance leveled out to a neutral impact due to the low volume of actual events.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 6.7m -3.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Capitalizing on his lone offensive touch yielded a quick positive spike in his limited court time. He executed his role adequately without forcing the issue or making defensive mistakes. A quiet, efficient garbage-time appearance kept his final rating slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A missed perimeter look and minimal floor involvement led to a slightly negative rating during a very brief cameo. He failed to make any tangible defensive rotations to offset the empty offensive possession. This was essentially a placeholder shift that yielded no positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +175.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.2m -1.5
Impact -1.3
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
+1.4

Immediate defensive presence in the paint generated a quick positive rating despite barely breaking a sweat. He altered a shot during his brief time on the floor, showcasing his length and rim-protection instincts. This micro-shift was defined entirely by a single impactful defensive rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Forcing two ill-advised perimeter shots in just over a minute of action instantly tanked his overall impact score. The rushed offensive execution led to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. His hyper-aggressive but inaccurate shot selection defined a highly detrimental cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 1.3m -0.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 34.7m
33
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite shot-making from the perimeter fueled a massive offensive rating, keeping the primary scoring engine running hot. He consistently punished defensive rotations with quick-trigger jumpers, elevating his overall net impact. Solid positional defense ensured his scoring volume translated directly to winning margins.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 34.7m -16.6
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Keyonte George 32.6m
17
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.2

High-level playmaking and relentless hustle plays easily outweighed a poor shooting night from the floor. He consistently collapsed the defense to generate high-quality looks for teammates, driving a strong positive impact score. His aggressive point-of-attack defense set a physical tone that kept his overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 32.6m -15.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Walker Kessler 28.5m
4
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Strong rim protection and active rebounding generated positive defensive metrics, but his offensive limitations dragged down the overall score. Clogged spacing in the half-court offense negated much of the value he provided on the glass. His performance was defined by elite paint deterrence that couldn't overcome a stagnant offensive fit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 28.5m -13.8
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 22.9m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.5

A complete inability to connect from deep cratered his offensive value, as defenders routinely ignored him on the perimeter. Empty offensive possessions compounded his negative impact, with zero defensive playmaking to salvage the shift. The sheer volume of missed open looks completely derailed the team's spacing when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 22.9m -10.9
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 10.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Inefficient shot selection around the rim severely handicapped his overall impact during a brief stint. A lack of defensive resistance failed to offset the offensive struggles, making him a net negative on the floor. His inability to finish through contact defined his rough outing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 10.0m -4.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Methodical playmaking generated quality looks, but his reluctance to shoot from the perimeter allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint. While his connective passing was solid, a lack of defensive disruption limited his overall effectiveness. The pacing he brought to the second unit was ultimately undermined by the spacing issues his presence created.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 25.3m -12.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ace Bailey 22.5m
6
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Errant shot selection and forced jumpers severely limited his offensive efficiency, dragging his overall impact into the red. Despite the offensive struggles, he maintained value through highly disruptive perimeter defense and active rebounding. His shift was characterized by high-energy defensive rotations that partially masked his erratic scoring attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 22.5m -10.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Excellent positional defense and rim deterrence were completely overshadowed by sloppy offensive execution and likely turnover issues. He anchored the paint effectively, but his inability to secure the ball in traffic tanked his net rating. The stark contrast between his defensive solidity and offensive carelessness defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 17.3m -8.3
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a nice offensive spark, but a lack of secondary counting stats kept his overall impact muted. He struggled to make an imprint defensively, frequently getting caught ball-watching on the weak side. A failure to impact the game beyond catching and shooting resulted in a neutral-to-negative final score.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 14.9m -7.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless energy and highly disruptive hustle plays defined a sparkplug performance off the bench. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort, more than making up for a few erratic offensive decisions. His aggressive ball pressure changed the tempo of the game during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 12.2m -5.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive lapses at the point of attack chipped away at the marginal value he provided as a secondary ball-handler. He hit an opportunistic perimeter shot, but struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the other end. His inability to navigate screens effectively defined a slightly negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 8.7m -4.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Bleeding points on the defensive end led to a rapid hook from the coaching staff. Forced perimeter shots early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow, compounding his negative defensive rating. A complete lack of hustle plays or rotational awareness defined this highly detrimental brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 5.4m -2.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A completely passive offensive approach rendered him invisible during his short stint on the floor. While he made a few minor hustle plays, his lack of aggression or floor-spacing gravity allowed defenders to freely double-team elsewhere. This invisible stretch of basketball resulted in a mildly negative impact simply due to a lack of tangible contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -167.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 5.0m -2.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0