GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 34.6m
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

Constant off-ball motion and gravity as a shooter opened up driving lanes for teammates, anchoring a strong +7.9 net rating. He supplemented his efficient scoring with a +6.8 defensive impact, utilizing his size to contest effectively at the rim. His disciplined shot selection ensured he was a stabilizing force rather than a volume-dependent liability.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 34.6m -22.6
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 30.3m
20
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.5

Despite efficient scoring numbers, his overall impact plummeted to -6.5 due to a porous point-of-attack defense that allowed straight-line drives. A glaring lack of hustle (+0.6) and susceptibility to getting caught on screens constantly put the frontcourt in rotation. His offensive production was effectively nullified by how much he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 30.3m -19.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jusuf Nurkić 22.4m
5
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Clunky finishing around the basket and forced post-ups dragged his overall impact into the negative (-3.0). Although he provided adequate positional defense, his sluggish pick-and-roll coverages were repeatedly exploited by quicker guards. The inability to convert high-percentage looks ultimately outweighed his interior presence.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 22.4m -14.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 21.5m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

A brutal -11.6 total impact was driven by forced perimeter shots early in the shot clock that allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. While he provided modest hustle (+2.3), his inability to stay in front of quicker guards created cascading defensive breakdowns. The lack of offensive rhythm completely stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 21.5m -14.1
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 20.8m
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Slashing to the rim with purpose and finishing through contact fueled a highly impressive +8.4 net impact. His +7.4 defensive score was highlighted by excellent weak-side awareness, frequently rotating to shut down baseline drives. He played with a controlled aggression that perfectly balanced scoring punch with defensive responsibility.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.4
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 20.8m -13.6
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Soft touch around the rim and disciplined defensive positioning (+6.0) kept his overall impact in the green. However, his surprisingly low +1.4 total rating compared to his raw production suggests he was targeted in space during pick-and-roll switches. He managed to offset those perimeter struggles with timely interior contests.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 26.4m -17.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.2

A complete offensive disappearing act and passive off-ball movement resulted in a disastrous -16.2 net impact. He failed to generate any rim pressure, settling for contested looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Without any redeeming hustle or defensive metrics, his minutes were a massive drain on the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -76.7
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 19.7m -12.9
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Forced isolation attempts against set defenses severely disrupted the offensive flow, driving a dismal -9.8 net rating. A near-total absence of hustle plays (+0.2) meant he wasn't compensating for his poor shot selection with extra possessions. He repeatedly stalled the ball movement during a stagnant third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 17.2m -11.3
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

Sloppy ball-handling and erratic decision-making in traffic cratered his overall impact to -10.3. While his +2.3 defensive score showed flashes of solid on-ball pressure, his offensive possessions frequently stalled out or ended in detrimental transition chances for the opponent. He struggled to read the secondary line of defense on his drives.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -79.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 13.6m -8.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
Kevin Love 13.2m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Elite trail-three execution completely warped the opposing defense, resulting in a positive +2.5 impact despite his limited mobility. His -1.9 defensive score reflects his struggles when pulled into space on pick-and-rolls, but his quick-trigger shooting masked those deficiencies. He served as a massive floor-spacing weapon during a crucial second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 13.2m -8.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Extreme passivity on offense allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint, contributing to a steep -7.4 impact score. Although he provided a respectable +2.3 hustle rating by chasing loose balls, his inability to threaten the rim made the offense essentially play four-on-five. He failed to tilt the defense in any meaningful way.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 12.0m -7.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
1
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Rushed perimeter attempts and an inability to finish through contact marred a brief, ineffective stint (-4.0 impact). He did manage a +2.5 defensive score by utilizing his length to contest a few jumpers, but his offensive zero negated that effort. The lack of decisive cutting left him stranded on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 8.1m -5.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
31
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.8

Surgical isolation execution and flawless perimeter shot selection catapulted his overall impact to a team-high +12.8. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives, creating high-value kickouts while avoiding costly turnovers. His ability to dictate the tempo in the half-court completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 30.1m -19.7
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 26.9m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Smothering on-ball pressure defined this performance, generating a spectacular +9.6 defensive impact score. He supplemented that perimeter lockdown with elite hustle metrics, constantly blowing up passing lanes to ignite fast breaks. Smart, opportunistic shot selection ensured he maximized his touches without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.6
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 26.9m -17.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 26.8m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Elite rim deterrence drove a massive +8.0 defensive rating, anchoring the interior whenever he rotated over from the weak side. However, settling for contested perimeter jumpers completely derailed his offensive rhythm and dragged his net impact into the red. Poor shot selection ultimately overshadowed his paint patrol.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.8m -17.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Flawless execution around the basket and relentless screen-setting fueled a highly efficient offensive stint. His +6.3 defensive score was anchored by excellent positional awareness against pick-and-roll coverages. He consistently created second-chance opportunities that kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 23.7m -15.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Luguentz Dort 21.1m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Pristine perimeter efficiency boosted his raw offensive metrics, but his overall impact inexplicably cratered to -4.8. A lack of his usual point-of-attack defensive disruption and minimal hustle contributions left him vulnerable in transition matchups. He failed to generate the gritty, momentum-shifting plays that normally define his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 21.1m -13.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 25.2m
16
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.2

Lethal floor-spacing and exceptional off-ball movement forced defensive overreactions, driving a massive +15.2 net impact. Beyond the perimeter gravity, his staggering +10.7 hustle score reflects a relentless effort in chasing down loose balls and fighting through screens. He completely flipped the game's momentum during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +10.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 25.2m -16.6
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Tenacious point-of-attack defense and a +5.1 hustle rating more than compensated for a streaky shooting night. He consistently disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, leading to a strong +7.0 defensive impact. His willingness to dive for 50/50 balls kept several crucial possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +54.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 24.6m -16.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

A masterclass in pick-and-pop execution stretched the opposing frontcourt thin and generated a robust +6.9 overall impact. He paired this offensive spacing with disciplined verticality at the rim, anchoring a +6.2 defensive score. Drawing multiple charges in the paint further cemented his value as a high-IQ rotational piece.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 24.3m -15.9
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 18.4m
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Disruptive hands in the passing lanes and elite screen navigation fueled a stellar +7.2 net impact. He maximized his offensive touches with decisive, in-rhythm cuts rather than forcing isolation plays. His +5.7 hustle score underscores a trademark performance built on deflections and timely closeouts.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +65.2
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 18.4m -12.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Capitalizing brilliantly on limited run, he exploited defensive mismatches in the paint to drive a highly efficient +5.8 net rating. His +3.7 defensive score in just nine minutes highlights superb weak-side rotations that deterred easy layups. He provided an unexpected, high-energy spark exactly when the second unit needed stabilization.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 9.3m -6.1
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Making the most of a brief cameo, aggressive drives to the basket quickly generated a positive +2.1 impact score. He maintained defensive discipline during his short stint, avoiding cheap fouls while contesting shooters. A quick-trigger approach ensured the offense didn't stagnate while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +75.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 4.8m -3.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Flawless shot selection during a brief rotation stint yielded a highly efficient +4.5 net impact. Though his hustle metrics were negligible, his length disrupted a couple of key passing angles on the perimeter. He operated strictly within the flow of the offense, taking only what the defense conceded.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +75.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 4.8m -3.1
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0