GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 28.8m
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.7

Total command of the paint dictated the terms of engagement, as Utah actively refused to challenge him at the rim. He generated massive value by setting bone-crushing screens that completely freed up Edwards for downhill attacks. Even without high scoring volume, his sheer physical presence and rim deterrence anchored the entire defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +11.7
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 28.8m -16.7
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 27.1m
22
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.0

A masterclass in two-way dominance, completely suffocating Utah's primary creators while punishing defensive rotations on the other end. He expertly navigated screens to blow up pick-and-roll actions, turning deflections into immediate transition offense. His pristine shot selection and lockdown perimeter length made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +57.0
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.9
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 27.1m -15.6
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Julius Randle 26.2m
19
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
+0.1

Heavy offensive usage yielded impressive counting stats, but a barrage of offensive fouls and forced passes into double-teams severely dampened his net impact. He bullied his way to his spots effectively, yet frequently stalled the ball when the initial read wasn't there. The brute-force approach worked in isolation but bogged down the team's overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +68.0
+/- +43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 26.2m -15.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Anthony Edwards 26.0m
37
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.7

Unstoppable perimeter shot-making completely broke the back of Utah's drop coverage. He recognized the defensive scheme early and ruthlessly hunted pull-up jumpers, punishing defenders who dared to go under screens. Active hands in the passing lanes further amplified his value, turning defensive anticipation into immediate highlight-reel offense.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 39.4%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 26.0m -15.1
Impact +18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

A frigid shooting night from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He tried to compensate with frenetic defensive energy, successfully blowing up a few dribble hand-offs, but the offensive spacing issues were too severe to overcome. Careless entry passes further dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 20.6m -11.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Naz Reid 23.6m
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Struggled to find the range from deep, which neutralized his primary weapon as a floor-spacing big. While his activity level on defense was commendable, he was repeatedly whistled for moving screens that killed offensive momentum. The inability to punish mismatches on switches ultimately made it a frustratingly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 23.6m -13.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 19.8m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Provided a solid defensive spark by hounding ball-handlers the full length of the court, forcing rushed decisions. However, his offensive limitations were glaring, as he passed up multiple open looks that stalled the halfcourt execution. A couple of ill-advised reach-in fouls negated the positive momentum he built through his hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 19.8m -11.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Mike Conley 16.6m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Uncharacteristic sloppiness with the ball led to a pair of brutal live-ball turnovers that Utah immediately converted into points. He managed the game well in the halfcourt, but struggled to contain quicker guards at the point of attack. The veteran savvy was evident in his pacing, but the defensive slippage and unforced errors proved costly.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.6m -9.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Electric quickness generated consistent paint touches, but erratic finishing and wild kick-out passes resulted in empty trips. He was frequently targeted on defense, getting overpowered on switches against larger wings. The raw offensive talent is obvious, but poor spatial awareness on both ends kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 11.3m -6.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

An absolute flamethrower off the bench, completely shifting the game's momentum with a barrage of contested shot-making. He exploited Utah's second-unit defense by aggressively attacking closeouts and making snap decisions with the ball. The sheer offensive gravity he provided in limited minutes blew the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 8.7m -5.1
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

High-motor play yielded a handful of extra possessions, as he relentlessly crashed the offensive glass from the weak side. Unfortunately, his eagerness led to a pair of costly over-the-back fouls that wiped out the advantage. He played his role with excellent energy, but minor positional mistakes kept his overall impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 8.7m -5.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Perfect execution around the basket was completely overshadowed by a disastrous tendency to foul jump shooters. He gave away free points by biting on pump fakes and failing to establish legal guarding position. While he finished the plays created for him, his defensive indiscipline made him a liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 8.7m -5.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Joe Ingles 8.6m
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Glaring lack of foot speed made him a massive target in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points every time he was switched onto a guard. He failed to generate any offensive advantage, looking hesitant to shoot when the ball swung his way. The inability to keep anyone in front of him resulted in a disastrously negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 8.6m -5.0
Impact -5.7
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
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to register a single meaningful action during his brief time on the floor. His impact cratered due to poor transition defense, repeatedly failing to match up and surrendering easy cross-court passes. He simply existed on the court without imposing his will or executing the scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 5.2m -3.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Isaiah Collier 26.3m
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.3

Relentless energy on loose balls couldn't mask a disastrous floor game defined by panicked reads against ball pressure. He surrendered massive value through a string of careless ball-handling errors in the second half that directly led to transition layups. The defensive rotations were consistently a half-step slow, compounding the damage of his offensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -61.0
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 26.3m -15.2
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Keyonte George 25.9m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A high-usage offensive showing was severely undercut by reckless decision-making in transition. He repeatedly forced the issue into traffic, generating empty possessions through bad passes that fueled opponent fast breaks. Even with solid point-of-attack defense, the sheer volume of given-away possessions dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 25.9m -15.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Lauri Markkanen 21.2m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

An abysmal shooting night from the perimeter was completely salvaged by an unexpectedly dominant defensive performance. He anchored the weakside help effectively, deterring multiple drives during a crucial third-quarter stretch. His willingness to crash the glass and contest at the rim offset the damage of his forced jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -55.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +9.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 21.2m -12.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 19.1m
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.8

Foul trouble and sloppy screening completely derailed his ability to stay on the floor and establish a rhythm. While his drop coverage effectively walled off the paint against drives, offensive fouls and unforced passing errors drained his overall value. He struggled to handle the physicality of Minnesota's frontcourt on the glass during his short stints.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 19.1m -11.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Svi Mykhailiuk 18.1m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Defensive lapses on the perimeter consistently compromised Utah's shell, bleeding points to Minnesota's guards. Despite hitting open spot-up looks, his overall impact plummeted due to late-game rotational mistakes and a pair of costly live-ball turnovers. The inability to stay in front of dribble penetration negated any offensive rhythm he found.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -67.5
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.7
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 18.1m -10.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ace Bailey 24.0m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Aggressive shot-hunting yielded decent volume but came at the expense of offensive flow and spacing. His tendency to stall the ball against set defenses resulted in several late-clock bail-out attempts that dragged down his efficiency. He did manage to claw back some value by utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 24.0m -13.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Brutal shot selection completely cratered his offensive impact, as he repeatedly settled for contested early-clock triples. The staggering number of empty possessions he generated overshadowed a genuinely impressive effort tracking down long rebounds. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, which completely derailed the team's halfcourt spacing during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 23.1m -13.4
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Elite activity level on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense afloat. He consistently beat his man to 50/50 balls and set bruising screens to free up Utah's ball-handlers. Defending out in space remains a slight issue, but his sheer motor and physicality inside dictated the terms of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 21.7m -12.6
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Phenomenal weakside rim protection defined his stint, as he erased multiple drives with perfectly timed rotations. The offensive struggles were glaring due to rushed perimeter mechanics, but his defensive gravity more than compensated. He successfully locked down the baseline during a pivotal second-quarter run, proving his worth as a defensive anchor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 17.4m -10.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Methodical orchestration at the elbows picked apart the opposing zone defense and created high-quality looks for cutters. While his slow-footedness on the perimeter was exposed in isolation matchups, his offensive connective tissue kept the scoreboard moving. He expertly manipulated the tempo to hide his athletic limitations.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 12.0m -6.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Passive offensive positioning limited his ability to leave a meaningful footprint on the game during his brief rotation. He executed the scheme cleanly without forcing bad shots, but a couple of missed box-outs gave away easy putbacks. His stint was largely defined by blending into the background rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -44.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 11.7m -6.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Tentative decision-making on the wing caused several offensive sets to stagnate when he caught the ball. He showed flashes of excellent lateral quickness on defense, staying attached to shooters through multiple screens. However, his reluctance to attack closeouts ultimately rendered him a non-threat and hurt the team's overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 9.7m -5.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Pure energy and grit defined his short burst off the bench, highlighted by two crucial diving saves to extend possessions. He completely abandoned any scoring ambitions to focus entirely on face-guarding his assignment. That relentless point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm just enough to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 6.5m -3.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevin Love 3.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief cameo was marred by an inability to keep up with the pace of play in transition. He was immediately targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, giving up a quick pair of open looks before being subbed out. The lack of mobility completely neutralized his trademark rebounding positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0