GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 38.8m
29
pts
12
reb
12
ast
Impact
+10.1

A dominant two-way masterclass resulted in a staggering positive impact, driven by elite defensive versatility and high-level offensive initiation. He absolutely punished mismatches in transition while simultaneously shutting down passing lanes on the other end of the floor. This performance was defined by his sheer physical dominance and ability to dictate the game's tempo from the forward spot.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.7
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 38.8m -24.3
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 36.6m
10
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite perimeter lockdown defense and relentless hustle heavily drove his positive overall impact. He consistently blew up opponent actions at the point of attack, generating transition opportunities through sheer disruption. His low-usage, high-efficiency offensive approach perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.8
Defense +10.9
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 36.6m -22.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
30
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless offensive aggression and a willingness to let it fly from deep fueled a highly impactful performance. He paired his high-volume perimeter barrage with excellent hustle, constantly fighting through screens and closing out on shooters. The sheer pressure he applied to the defense completely warped their rotation schemes.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 34.7m -21.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.7m
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Strong interior finishing and solid defensive metrics were surprisingly overshadowed by unseen negative plays, resulting in a net-negative impact. The disconnect between his robust box score and negative total suggests he likely surrendered crucial offensive rebounds or committed costly fouls in the paint. Despite holding his own statistically, his minutes coincided with back-breaking opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 33.7m -21.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

A massive spike in scoring efficiency was completely undone by hidden negatives, dragging his total impact down into the negative. The stark contrast between his pristine shooting splits and poor overall rating points to crucial defensive breakdowns or off-ball lapses. His inability to contain dribble penetration likely bled points on the other end, nullifying his offensive breakout.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 26.8m -16.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

A massive surge in offensive confidence combined with highly disruptive defense to generate a stellar impact in limited minutes. He capitalized on every rotation mistake, finishing decisively at the rim while using his length to alter shots on the other end. This unexpected two-way breakout provided a massive jolt of energy to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 23.5m -14.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Strong defensive execution anchored his positive impact despite a somewhat streaky shooting night from beyond the arc. He consistently made the right reads within the defensive scheme, helping to stifle opponent drives and force tough kick-outs. His willingness to keep firing from deep maintained crucial floor spacing for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.2m -13.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 15.7m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Complete offensive invisibility and a failure to generate any gravity tanked his impact to an abysmal rating. When his perimeter shots aren't falling, his inability to create off the bounce or impact the game defensively makes him a massive liability. Opponents actively targeted him in space, exploiting his lack of lateral quickness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 15.7m -9.9
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

A completely empty shift resulted in a steep negative impact during his brief time on the floor. He failed to initiate any meaningful offense or disrupt the opponent's rhythm, essentially allowing the game to pass him by. The second unit hemorrhaged points during his minutes due to a severe lack of point-of-attack resistance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 9.0m -5.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
42
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

An absolute offensive masterclass fueled a massive positive impact, driven by relentless and highly efficient perimeter volume. His ability to hit heavily contested shots completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and forced constant double-teams. Despite modest defensive metrics, his overwhelming scoring gravity dictated the flow of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.5%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 35.4m -22.1
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Evan Mobley 33.6m
20
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite defensive anchoring and high-level facilitation from the frontcourt drove a massive positive impact. Even though his recent streak of hyper-efficient shooting snapped, his willingness to stretch the floor and generate extra possessions through relentless hustle kept his value elite. He completely controlled the interior dynamics and dictated the physical tone of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 33.6m -21.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Darius Garland 33.0m
15
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-8.6

High-volume facilitation couldn't salvage a disastrous overall impact, likely ruined by live-ball turnovers and poor shot selection. The severe disconnect between his decent defensive metrics and abysmal total score points to offensive possessions dying in his hands. His inability to consistently threaten from deep allowed the defense to sag and blow up pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 33.0m -20.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S De'Andre Hunter 32.2m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Efficient spot-up execution masked underlying flaws that tanked his overall impact to a stark negative. The steep drop-off from his baseline production suggests costly turnovers or defensive breakdowns in his individual matchups. His inability to generate secondary value outside of scoring ultimately dragged down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 32.2m -20.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 28.0m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

A stark drop in offensive aggression severely limited his overall effectiveness, resulting in a negative total impact. While he maintained solid rim protection, his inability to command defensive attention inside allowed opponents to cheat off him and clog passing lanes. The lack of interior scoring gravity completely disrupted the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 28.0m -17.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 21.3m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Stellar defensive execution kept his head above water despite a brutal shooting slump that halved his usual scoring output. He compensated for missing contested jumpers by locking down his primary assignments and making timely weak-side rotations. This performance highlighted his ability to salvage a positive impact even when his offensive rhythm completely vanishes.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 21.3m -13.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Dean Wade 18.8m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Floating on the perimeter without generating meaningful defensive pressure resulted in a hollow stint and a negative overall impact. Despite slightly exceeding his modest scoring baseline, his failure to disrupt the opponent's actions or secure contested boards left the frontcourt vulnerable. He essentially occupied space without tilting the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 18.8m -11.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 16.7m
3
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

Passive offensive involvement and clanked perimeter looks dragged his overall impact firmly into the red. While his defensive rotations remained sharp, his complete lack of scoring threat made the team play four-on-five on the other end. The inability to punish closeouts severely hindered the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 16.7m -10.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Efficient spot minutes weren't quite enough to push his impact into the green, settling at a near-neutral rating. He capitalized on his limited offensive touches but struggled to make a dent defensively against larger matchups. It was a serviceable filler shift that neither hurt nor helped the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 11.1m -7.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

A completely invisible offensive shift combined with slight defensive liabilities resulted in a net-negative showing. He failed to register any scoring gravity, allowing the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him in pick-and-roll coverages. The brief stint was defined by a lack of physical imposition on either side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +78.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 9.9m -6.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0