GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 37.5m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

Uncharacteristic struggles to finish through contact around the basket severely depressed his offensive value. Although he remained a formidable deterrent in drop coverage, his inability to convert standard pick-and-roll lobs bogged down the half-court offense. Missing multiple point-blank bunnies directly fueled the massive -10.9 crater in his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 37.5m -19.7
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Terance Mann 36.0m
14
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

Scoring efficiently on timely cuts wasn't enough to mask a highly problematic performance on the defensive end. He was routinely beaten off the dribble by quicker guards, forcing emergency help that compromised the entire defensive shell. Those constant breakdowns at the point of attack ultimately drove a steep -6.9 overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 36.0m -19.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 35.1m
16
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

A brutal volume-shooting performance completely overshadowed his otherwise stellar defensive positioning and hustle. He repeatedly killed offensive momentum by launching ill-advised, early-clock threes that led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. Even a strong +5.0 defensive rating couldn't salvage the damage done by his erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 35.1m -18.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Egor Dëmin 30.5m
23
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.7

Unwavering confidence from beyond the arc stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, opening up crucial driving lanes for his teammates. Even with a few forced perimeter looks, his sheer gravity and active hands in the passing lanes kept his impact highly positive. A pivotal third-quarter shooting barrage firmly established his value in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 30.5m -16.0
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ziaire Williams 29.8m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Strong weak-side rim protection and active rotations generated a robust +5.6 defensive rating, but his offensive inefficiency spoiled the overall impact. Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups short-circuited several promising possessions. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent ultimately pushed his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 29.8m -15.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 20.6m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Extreme offensive passivity allowed his defenders to completely abandon him and play free safety in the half-court. By refusing to attack closeouts or look for his own shot, he severely compromised the team's floor spacing. This lack of gravitational threat was the primary driver behind a dismal -8.3 overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 20.6m -10.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

An unexpected and highly efficient scoring explosion off the bench completely tilted the game's math in his team's favor. He decisively punished defensive closeouts with hard, straight-line drives to the rim, generating a massive +15.7 box impact. This aggressive, decisive shot-making provided a critical offensive lifeline when the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -45.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 17.3m -9.1
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 12.8m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Generating points exclusively through hard-earned trips to the foul line managed to salvage an otherwise rough shooting night. While he struggled to finish his looks from the floor, his willingness to absorb contact in the paint kept the defense honest. Ultimately, his gritty foul-drawing just barely offset the negative drag of his missed field goals.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 12.8m -6.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 10.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A disastrous shooting slump completely derailed his minutes, as he failed to convert on multiple wide-open spot-up opportunities. His inability to punish defensive rotations allowed opponents to aggressively trap the ball-handlers without consequence. Those empty offensive trips quickly compounded, resulting in a punishing -7.0 net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 10.3m -5.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Rushing his attempts in traffic resulted in a highly inefficient stint that quickly bled away team momentum. He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to awkward, off-balance hooks that failed to draw iron. This inability to anchor the interior offense directly contributed to a sharp -4.4 net impact during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 42.6m
19
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.9

Relentless point-of-attack defense and elite hustle metrics (+7.6) were completely undone by a brutal night from beyond the arc. Forcing up flat, contested perimeter looks dragged his overall impact into the red despite his defensive tenacity. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint during crucial late-game possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 42.6m -22.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tyrese Maxey 41.8m
22
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.6

Constant downhill pressure and aggressive rim attacks kept his box impact soaring, even as his perimeter jumper abandoned him. He routinely collapsed the defense to create open kick-outs, offsetting the damage from several forced, late-clock isolation threes. A surprisingly robust defensive effort (+6.8) ultimately kept his overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 41.8m -22.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 25.3m
10
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Continuing a highly efficient five-game stretch, he capitalized on high-percentage looks around the basket to anchor his positive box metrics. His ability to seal off defenders in the dunker spot provided a reliable safety valve for driving guards. However, occasional lapses in pick-and-roll coverage kept his overall net impact relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 25.3m -13.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul George 21.4m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume, his overall value remained elite due to suffocating perimeter defense. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and forced contested jumpers, generating a massive +7.3 defensive impact. The reduced offensive load actually allowed him to maximize his energy on the less glamorous side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 21.4m -11.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 10.5m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.4

A flawless shooting night and dominant physicality in the paint fueled an enormous +10.4 total impact in just over ten minutes of action. He completely controlled the glass during his brief second-quarter stint, generating crucial second-chance opportunities. Sinking a rare perimeter look was just the icing on a highly disruptive physical performance.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 10.5m -5.5
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jared McCain 28.8m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.3

An absolute two-way masterclass defined this breakout performance, highlighted by a staggering +12.7 defensive impact rating. He paired suffocating on-ball pressure with a lethal, quick-trigger perimeter stroke that punished defenders for going under screens. This sudden surge in aggressive two-way play completely flipped the momentum during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +12.7
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 28.8m -15.2
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 22.8m
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.8

Explosive rim-running and relentless energy on the offensive glass drove a highly efficient two-way showing. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor in transition, converting high-percentage dump-offs to anchor his +10.8 box score metric. Adding a surprise perimeter make only amplified a night defined by elite, high-motor hustle.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 22.8m -12.0
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Offensive futility completely tanked his overall value, as he struggled to find any rhythm on rushed catch-and-shoot opportunities. While he stayed engaged defensively with active hands in the passing lanes, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too costly. Opponents openly sagged off him, severely clogging the spacing for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 16.1m -8.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Defensive miscommunications and slow closeouts dragged his net impact into the negative despite a highly efficient offensive cameo. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, frequently leaving shooters with daylight on the perimeter. While he finished his limited looks at the rim, the defensive bleeding outweighed his modest scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 11.2m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability during his brief stint on the floor. By refusing to even look at the rim, he allowed defenders to aggressively double-team the primary ball-handlers. The veteran's inability to generate any gravitational pull ultimately stalled the second unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 11.2m -5.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Getting bullied in the post during a brief first-half rotation completely torpedoed his defensive metrics. He was consistently out-leveraged by stronger assignments, forcing the defense into unwanted rotations to protect the paint. With zero field goal attempts to offset the defensive damage, his minutes were a clear net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -44.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 7.5m -4.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0