GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
37
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+22.4

An absolute masterclass in offensive initiation and foul-drawing broke the back of the opposing defense. He paired this relentless scoring pressure with exceptional hustle, generating extra possessions through sheer willpower. Dictating the tempo from the opening tip resulted in a stratospheric overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 14/17 (82.4%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +28.5
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +42.4
Avg player in 35.7m -20.0
Impact +22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 32.4m
23
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Elite rim protection combined with highly efficient inside-out scoring to produce a dominant two-way performance. He consistently punished mismatches in the post while altering countless shots on the other end. This dual-threat mastery dictated the flow of the game and drove a massive positive score.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 32.4m -18.1
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 32.4m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Surgical shot selection and lockdown perimeter defense made him a massive net positive. He refused to waste possessions, converting his spot-up opportunities at a blistering rate. Disrupting passing lanes on the other end perfectly complemented his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 32.4m -18.2
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 29.6m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle were completely undone by offensive spacing issues. Clanking wide-open perimeter looks allowed the opposing defense to pack the paint against his teammates. His inability to punish drop coverage ultimately tipped his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 29.6m -16.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 29.1m
11
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brutal shooting slump from the floor overshadowed his otherwise solid playmaking efforts. Forcing contested shots in traffic led to empty possessions that sapped the team's momentum. The sheer volume of missed field goals dragged his net score down despite decent defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 29.1m -16.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Alex Caruso 24.1m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Passing up open looks severely handicapped the team's half-court offense, dragging his net score into the negative. Even though he was an absolute menace in passing lanes, playing essentially four-on-five on the other end stalled crucial runs. His reluctance to attack closeouts allowed defenders to freely double-team the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 24.1m -13.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
Isaiah Joe 23.9m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

A lack of defensive resistance and minimal hustle plays caused his overall value to plummet. While he hit a couple of timely jumpers, he gave those points right back by getting lost on back-door cuts. Being targeted in pick-and-roll switches erased any offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.9m -13.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite finding a great rhythm from beyond the arc, his inability to anchor the interior defense proved costly. Opponents routinely exploited his lack of rim protection, scoring easily in the paint. The defensive bleeding ultimately outweighed his highly efficient floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 21.0m -11.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Providing zero resistance at the point of attack made him a clear defensive liability during his short rotation. Compounding the issue with a complete lack of hustle plays meant he offered no secondary value. A couple of forced offensive looks sealed a highly negative brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 7.2m -3.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

A disastrously brief stint was defined by rushed, out-of-rhythm shot attempts that killed offensive momentum. Failing to register a single hustle play or defensive stop compounded the damage of his empty possessions. He was played off the floor almost immediately after bleeding value.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -3.9
Avg player in 4.7m -2.6
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 38.8m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite an aggressive uptick in scoring volume, his overall impact cratered due to severe perimeter bricklaying. Forcing up low-quality looks completely offset his otherwise solid hustle metrics. The sheer number of empty offensive possessions ultimately dragged down the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 38.8m -21.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Booker 38.5m
21
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.7

Uncharacteristic struggles to create separation resulted in a highly inefficient scoring night. The offense stagnated during his isolation sets, leading to empty trips that severely damaged his net score. A heavy reliance on contested mid-range pull-ups ultimately sank his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 38.5m -21.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
24
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

A sudden explosion in perimeter shot-making completely transformed the offensive spacing. He paired this scorching outside touch with relentless hustle on loose balls, driving a massive positive swing. Capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot opportunities defined his breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 33.2m -18.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Royce O'Neale 28.9m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Settling for contested looks from beyond the arc limited his offensive effectiveness. While he provided a steady defensive presence on the wing, the lack of efficiency on his jumper resulted in a net negative impact. His inability to find high-percentage shots stalled crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 28.9m -16.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mark Williams 22.4m
13
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Dominating the interior glass provided a massive boost to the team's possession battle. He converted his paint touches at a highly efficient clip, anchoring the frontcourt with physical play. This reliable presence around the rim kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 22.4m -12.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Forcing the issue on drives led to a string of clanked attempts that derailed his offensive rhythm. Even though he showed flashes of defensive resistance, the poor shot selection heavily outweighed those contributions. His tendency to play hero ball in transition proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 25.9m -14.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 21.9m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

Elite defensive positioning and timely rotations fueled a highly positive night despite a drop in scoring volume. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, refusing to force bad shots. Acting as the ultimate glue guy in the half-court set maximized his on-court value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Injecting instant energy off the bench, his decisive rim attacks caught the opposing defense flat-footed. He maximized a short stint by converting high-percentage looks and avoiding careless mistakes. This surgical offensive execution drove a highly efficient rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 14.2m -8.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Complete invisibility on the offensive end turned his minutes into a liability. While he competed adequately on the defensive perimeter, the total lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him. Failing to convert his few open looks cemented a negative outing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 12.2m -6.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Making the most of a brief cameo, he capitalized on his lone touch around the basket. He avoided defensive breakdowns during his short stint, keeping the unit afloat. A quick, mistake-free shift ensured a modest but positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 3.9m -2.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0