GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
17
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.5

Masterful orchestration of the offense and lethal perimeter shooting drove a highly positive rating. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages perfectly, finding the open man or punishing drop coverage with deep pull-ups. Disciplined point-of-attack defense further solidified his strong performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 30.1m -18.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Brandon Ingram 29.9m
24
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.4

Aggressive downhill attacking and elite defensive engagement broke him out of a recent slump. He consistently collapsed the defense to create opportunities, even with his perimeter shot failing to connect. Active hands and physical on-ball defense heavily inflated his highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 29.9m -18.2
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Scottie Barnes 29.9m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

A dominant two-way performance defined by highly efficient shot selection and disruptive defensive play. He bullied mismatches in the paint while punishing defenders who went under screens with accurate perimeter shooting. This relentless rim pressure drove an elite net impact.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 29.9m -18.2
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 29.2m
24
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Strong downhill driving and finishing through contact fueled a solid offensive showing. However, average defensive metrics and occasional tunnel vision in the half-court capped his overall impact. He thrived in transition but gave some value back with missed rotations on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 29.2m -17.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jakob Poeltl 19.2m
3
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Offensive involvement plummeted, but exceptional rim protection and rebounding maintained a positive rating. He anchored the paint effectively, altering multiple shots at the basket and securing the defensive glass. The lack of scoring volume kept his overall impact lower than his usual standard.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 19.2m -11.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Embraced a low-usage offensive role to focus entirely on lockdown perimeter defense. Relentless ball pressure and high-energy closeouts disrupted the opponent's offensive flow throughout his stint. This defensive intensity, combined with perfect shot selection, resulted in a highly efficient outing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 3.5%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 22.3m -13.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.1

An absolute offensive explosion defined by relentless rim-running and confident floor spacing. He consistently beat his man down the floor, generating high-percentage looks in early offense. This aggressive scoring mentality produced the highest impact score of the night.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 20.9m -12.7
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 19.0m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Continued perimeter shooting struggles negated his solid defensive positioning, dragging his overall impact into the red. Defenders routinely ignored him on the weak side, bogging down the half-court spacing and forcing tough shots for others. Despite active defensive hands, the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 19.0m -11.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Shead 16.2m
7
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+5.8

Flawless shooting and elite playmaking maximized his offensive impact without forcing bad shots. He dissected the defense with pinpoint passing, generating high-quality looks for teammates on nearly every possession. This perfect balance of scoring and facilitating drove a stellar rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +50.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 16.2m -9.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 16.0m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

A complete lack of offensive aggression and minimal defensive impact resulted in a heavily negative rating. He floated on the perimeter without cutting or creating separation, rendering himself a non-factor in the half-court. This passive approach allowed the defense to easily key in on primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 16.0m -9.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief but perfectly efficient spark during his short time on the floor. Knocking down his only perimeter look ensured his offensive minutes were a net positive. Maintained basic defensive principles to avoid giving back his scoring value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite converting his only shot attempt, a lack of defensive resistance in garbage time led to a negative impact. He was targeted on switches and failed to provide meaningful help defense around the rim. The empty peripheral stats couldn't overcome the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 29.0m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.1

Poor shot selection and offensive inefficiency created a massive crater in his impact score. He consistently settled for contested looks early in the shot clock, giving away valuable possessions. This offensive liability completely overshadowed what was otherwise a stellar defensive showing on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 29.0m -17.6
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Bilal Coulibaly 26.0m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Severe perimeter shooting woes completely tanked his overall rating despite active defensive rotations. Missing multiple wide-open looks from deep allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the half-court offense. His high defensive metrics couldn't salvage the negative offensive gravity created by his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 26.0m -15.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 25.9m
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

High-volume interior scoring was heavily offset by a cold night from beyond the arc. Clanking numerous perimeter attempts limited his overall efficiency and allowed the defense to pack the paint against drives. A lack of disruptive defensive plays kept his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 25.9m -15.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Khris Middleton 24.1m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.8

Offensive rhythm was entirely absent, with forced perimeter jumpers driving a massive negative impact. His inability to create separation against younger wings resulted in contested misses that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Even steady defensive positioning wasn't enough to offset the scoring void.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 24.1m -14.6
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Struggled to find the range from outside, which neutralized his effectiveness as a floor-spacing big. High-energy closeouts and hustle plays kept his defensive metrics afloat during his rotation minutes. Ultimately, the empty offensive possessions and poor shot quality dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 17.2m -10.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Johnson 19.4m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Crisp shot selection and confident perimeter execution drove a highly effective stint. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities, punishing late rotations from the defense with quick-trigger shooting. Solid on-ball pressure further boosted his positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 19.4m -11.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Reliable floor spacing and disciplined defensive rotations resulted in a steady, albeit modest, positive impact. He took what the defense gave him without forcing bad shots against tight closeouts. Timely weak-side help on the perimeter highlighted his two-way stability.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -42.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 18.8m -11.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.5

Shifted into more of a facilitating role, using his gravity to create looks for teammates when his outside shot wasn't falling. Smart connective passing and active hands in passing lanes kept his impact in the green. A sharp drop in scoring volume prevented a higher rating, but his decision-making was sound.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 18.3m -11.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Whitmore 17.1m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Tunnel vision on offense yielded efficient scoring but capped his overall impact due to a complete lack of playmaking. He forced the issue on drives rather than moving the ball, making the offensive flow highly predictable. Average defensive engagement resulted in a barely positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 17.1m -10.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

Defensive breakdowns and missed assignments completely erased his efficient offensive production. Opponents routinely targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, leading to easy scoring chances at the rim. Despite excellent hustle on loose balls, the defensive lapses dictated his negative score.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense -2.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.2m -9.9
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

A lack of offensive assertiveness and poor defensive positioning led to a slightly negative rating. He was frequently caught out of position on the weak side, giving up open driving lanes. High-energy hustle plays partially mitigated the structural damage caused by his defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 9.3m -5.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 9.3m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

A drastic reduction in offensive usage resulted in a completely flat net impact. He struggled to assert himself against physical coverage, settling for tough midrange looks instead of attacking the basket. Strong weak-side defensive rotations were the only thing keeping him out of the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 9.3m -5.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Maximized a brief appearance by providing an instant scoring punch off the bench. Decisive drives and confident shooting exploited a sleeping second-unit defense during a crucial stretch. His quick offensive burst drove the entirety of his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 46.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 4.7m -2.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalized on his limited offensive touches with excellent positioning around the basket. His brief stint was highly efficient offensively, though he showed some vulnerability in pick-and-roll defense. Flawless execution near the rim was enough to secure a positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 4.7m -2.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0