GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Christian Braun 31.5m
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.6

Tenacious on-ball defense was completely overshadowed by stalled offensive possessions and clunky spacing. A tendency to hesitate on catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to reset, dragging his overall impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 31.5m -18.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 30.9m
23
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.1

Lethal shot-making from beyond the arc punished defenders who dared to go under screens. He compounded this offensive efficiency with surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense, fighting through traffic to blow up multiple pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 30.9m -18.6
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 28.3m
26
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+20.6

An absolute masterclass in offensive orchestration and shot selection yielded a staggering net impact. He systematically dismantled the opposing frontcourt in the post, while his elite defensive positioning disrupted multiple entry passes.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +29.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 28.3m -16.9
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 25.1m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.4

Excellent weak-side rotations fueled a robust defensive rating, but his complete vanishing act on offense proved costly. Passing up open looks and failing to bend the defense allowed opponents to load up on the primary playmakers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +47.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 25.1m -15.1
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 24.0m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Punished late rotations by converting high-quality looks from the dunker spot and the perimeter. His physical presence on the defensive glass and switchability on the wing ensured a steady, positive impact throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 24.0m -14.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Wreaked absolute havoc as a weak-side roamer, generating an elite defensive rating through timely contests. His relentless energy on 50/50 balls provided crucial extra possessions that swung the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +7.1
Defense +7.4
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 24.3m -14.7
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Failed to provide the necessary floor-spacing gravity, as his perimeter attempts failed to stretch the defense. A lack of off-ball movement and minimal hustle resulted in a stagnant offensive flow during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 18.9m -11.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 18.4m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

Struggled to stay attached to his assignments on the perimeter, yielding a costly defensive rating. This defensive leakage was compounded by forced drives into the teeth of the defense that resulted in empty trips down the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 18.4m -11.0
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Bullied his way to deep post position, converting highly efficient looks at the rim to anchor a massive net impact. The defense had no answer for his physicality, forcing them into foul trouble and opening up the perimeter for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 15.7m -9.4
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Rushed his perimeter attempts during a brief stint, failing to capitalize on the spacing provided by the primary unit. A slight negative impact defensively further highlighted a shift where he struggled to find the rhythm of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 6.6m -3.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Operated purely as a passive ball-mover, failing to pressure the rim or bend the defense in his limited minutes. This lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes, stalling the second unit's execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Made an immediate defensive imprint by utilizing his length to disrupt passing angles on the wing. Paired with opportunistic hustle plays, his brief appearance effectively stifled the opponent's transition game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 4.0m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Capitalized immediately on his limited touches by converting clean looks around the basket. His decisive finishing in the paint ensured a quick, positive jolt to the team's offensive efficiency during a short rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

A rushed, contested jumper early in his shift set a poor tone for his brief time on the floor. Failing to secure positioning on the defensive end allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo, resulting in a quick impact drop.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +47.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite solid defensive metrics, his inability to stretch the floor from deep severely limited the offense's ceiling. Defenders consistently sagged off him on the perimeter, clogging driving lanes and stalling half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 30.6m -18.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Strong point-of-attack defense and active hustle plays were completely negated by erratic shot selection. Forcing contested looks in the paint led to empty possessions that tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 26.8m -16.2
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Draymond Green 25.7m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite defensive anchoring and high-motor hustle plays set the tone for the frontcourt. What truly elevated his positive impact, however, was an uncharacteristically aggressive and successful perimeter shooting display that punished drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.3
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 25.7m -15.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.6

Relentless energy on loose balls yielded a strong hustle rating, but it wasn't enough to salvage a disastrous offensive shift. A pattern of driving into traffic and missing contested floaters bled away valuable possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 24.6m -14.8
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Moses Moody 19.3m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.3

An absolute cratering of offensive value stemmed directly from forcing up a barrage of missed attempts from beyond the arc. While he showed minor flashes of defensive competence, his inability to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities derailed multiple offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 19.3m -11.6
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 23.4m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.5

Active hands in the passing lanes contributed to a respectable defensive rating during his minutes. Unfortunately, a string of forced mid-range jumpers and blown layups in transition severely capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 23.4m -14.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 19.7m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness on the perimeter allowed opponents to generate easy looks. Even with efficient outside shooting, his inability to stay in front of his primary matchup resulted in a steep negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 19.7m -11.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Quinten Post 19.7m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Flawless shot execution defined this stint, as he capitalized on every pick-and-pop opportunity presented to him. The sheer efficiency of his offensive touches easily outweighed minor struggles in pick-and-roll defensive coverages.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 19.7m -11.8
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 18.9m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Settling for contested perimeter looks dragged his net impact into the red despite a solid overall scoring volume. A lack of defensive resistance on the wing further eroded the value he provided on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 18.9m -11.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.6

Dominant rim protection completely altered the opponent's shot profile in the paint. He paired this defensive masterclass with excellent rim-running, consistently beating his man down the floor to generate high-value looks.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.9
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 18.5m -11.1
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Gui Santos 6.5m
1
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

A brief but highly disruptive defensive shift anchored his positive contribution. He stayed disciplined on closeouts and effectively funneled drivers toward the help defense, rendering his lack of offensive usage irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 6.5m -3.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Trademark ball pressure and active hands generated immediate defensive value during a short stint. He maximized his limited floor time by blowing up a key perimeter handoff that shifted momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 6.5m -3.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0