GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 47.6m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Despite solid interior finishing and disruptive length on the other end, his inability to stretch the floor proved costly. Opposing bigs simply camped in the lane, stalling out multiple crucial fourth-quarter possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 47.6m -22.3
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 37.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Naji Marshall 47.1m
28
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

High-volume attacking yielded crucial foul-line trips that offset his overall inefficiency from the floor. Relentless downhill pressure forced the defense into early penalty situations, allowing his team to control the pace.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.1m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 47.1m -21.9
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Max Christie 36.8m
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of pressuring the rim, resulting in empty offensive trips. This passive shot selection allowed the defense to stay home on shooters and easily recover.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 36.8m -17.0
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 27.4m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Anchored the paint with disciplined drop coverage and vertical spacing on offense. His timely weak-side rotations deterred multiple drives and stabilized the interior defense throughout the night.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.4m -12.7
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.1

Relentless loose-ball recoveries and elite transition pacing salvaged a truly abysmal shooting night. His sheer motor generated essential extra possessions that masked his half-court struggles, perfectly exemplified by a crucial third-quarter sequence where he kept three separate plays alive.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +8.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 18.1m -8.5
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
28
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Empty-calorie volume driven by a barrage of missed deep looks consistently killed offensive momentum. His tendency to force early-clock pull-ups bailed out the defense right when they were scrambling, dragging down his overall impact despite the scoring load.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.1%
USG% 37.6%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 38.6m -18.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

One-dimensional perimeter hunting yielded poor overall efficiency and limited his ability to impact the game elsewhere. Without the threat of a dribble-drive, defenders aggressively jumped his passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 27.6m -12.8
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Martin 18.4m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Floated through his minutes without asserting himself, failing to generate any meaningful weak-side action. This passive approach allowed the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 18.4m -8.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Provided a steadying presence inside, though his offensive role was entirely marginalized. A lack of assertive rim-running allowed his primary defender to freely roam as a free safety.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 17.2m -8.1
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 11.1m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.8

Maximized a brief stint with flawless rim-running and highly disruptive paint protection. His explosive verticality on lob attempts forced the defense to collapse, creating wide-open perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 11.1m -5.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 51.0m
41
pts
14
reb
11
ast
Impact
+18.4

Masterful isolation shot creation and lethal step-back efficiency carried the offense through a grueling marathon workload. His ability to manipulate defensive switches and punish drop coverage dictated the entire tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 51.0m
Offense +31.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +42.1
Avg player in 51.0m -23.7
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ivica Zubac 46.2m
27
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Absolute dominance in the restricted area fueled a massive positive swing. He consistently sealed off smaller defenders in the post, forcing early defensive rotations and generating high-quality looks at the rim.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.2m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.4
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 46.2m -21.5
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Elite point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact afloat despite a rough night from the perimeter. His insistence on taking contested above-the-break threes bogged down half-court possessions, nearly erasing the value of his perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 40.3m -18.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 32.2m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.0

Perimeter bricklaying completely erased the value of his stellar on-ball pressure. Opponents aggressively sagged off him in the half-court, effectively turning the offense into a cramped 4-on-5 battle.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 32.2m -15.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S John Collins 23.6m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

A sudden loss of touch from outside ruined his pick-and-pop gravity, allowing the defense to consistently pack the paint. The resulting clogged driving lanes cratered the team's offensive flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 23.6m -11.0
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.1

Broke out of a brutal slump with lethal perimeter shot-making that completely tilted the floor. His constant off-ball motion exhausted chasers and opened up massive driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.9
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 37.1m -17.2
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Solid rotational awareness on the defensive end couldn't compensate for a string of missed open corner looks. Failing to punish aggressive closeouts severely limited his overall effectiveness in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 24.9m -11.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 13.5m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Forced looks from deep and general offensive stagnation ruined his brief stint on the floor. A glaring lack of burst off the dribble prevented him from collapsing the defense, leading to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 13.5m -6.3
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Struggled to find any rhythm in limited action, bleeding value through disjointed offensive spacing. He repeatedly drifted into occupied zones, which disrupted the natural flow of the pick-and-roll game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 11.4m -5.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Completely ignored by the defense due to a total lack of rim pressure. His inability to establish deep post position allowed opponents to comfortably switch everything on the perimeter without consequence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -54.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 9.8m -4.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0