GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 37.8m
28
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

A lethal combination of high-volume perimeter shooting and excellent hustle (+6.0) drove a strong positive rating. He consistently punished defensive rotations, nearly doubling his recent scoring average while remaining highly engaged on the defensive end (+5.2). His floor-spacing gravity opened up the entire offense and created driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 37.8m -24.6
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 36.2m
37
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.2

Unstoppable offensive creation at all three levels generated a massive Box impact (+31.4) that dictated the terms of the game. He dissected the defense with elite scoring efficiency, continuing his scorching recent stretch. While his defensive metrics were minimal (+1.0), his shot-making gravity completely overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +31.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 36.2m -23.6
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nikola Jokić 36.0m
21
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.4

Hyper-efficient scoring and elite playmaking anchored a positive, though somewhat subdued, overall impact. He controlled the game's tempo perfectly without forcing his own offense, taking only high-value shots. His defensive (+3.1) and hustle (+3.4) metrics were solid, but his relatively low shot volume limited his total Box impact compared to his usual dominance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 36.0m -23.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 73.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Peyton Watson 33.7m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

A high volume of missed threes neutralized his otherwise strong defensive (+4.6) and hustle (+3.5) contributions. He was highly active and disruptive on the wing, but the offensive inefficiency prevented him from registering a positive net impact. The defensive stops were often given right back via empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 33.7m -22.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 22.8m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Empty offensive possessions from poor perimeter shooting stalled the team's momentum and dragged his overall impact into the negative. While he provided solid defensive (+4.2) and hustle (+2.5) value, the missed jumpers outweighed his energetic effort. His shot selection ultimately compromised his two-way effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 22.8m -15.0
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Inefficient volume shooting severely damaged his net impact by creating numerous empty possessions. He offered very little defensive (+1.1) or hustle (+1.2) value to compensate for the clanked perimeter attempts. The scoring bump from his recent average was entirely negated by the poor shot quality and lack of peripheral contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 28.5m -18.6
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bruce Brown 19.3m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

A disastrous shooting night completely derailed his impact, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. Despite strong hustle (+4.8) and capable defense (+2.7), the sheer number of blown layups and missed jumpers killed offensive momentum. His relentless energy couldn't overcome the offensive black hole he created.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 19.3m -12.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 13.8m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Missed perimeter attempts and low overall involvement led to a negative impact in his backup center minutes. He failed to generate significant defensive (+1.7) or hustle (+1.4) value to anchor the second unit. The lack of interior presence allowed the opposition to capitalize during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 13.8m -9.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Dominant physical presence on the glass secured crucial extra possessions and provided a solid positive impact. He was highly efficient with his limited touches and anchored the paint defensively (+3.9). His ability to control the restricted area compensated for a sharp drop in his recent scoring average.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 12.0m -7.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
25
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

Impact was propelled by aggressive, high-value shot selection from the perimeter that stretched the defense. His relentless activity on the glass and strong defensive metrics (+5.2) created extra possessions and stifled opponent momentum. The massive scoring surge capitalized on his two-way energy, making him a dominant floor-spacer.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 36.4m -23.7
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 34.1m
15
pts
1
reb
12
ast
Impact
-12.3

A severe drop in shooting efficiency cratered his impact, as a high volume of missed shots resulted in empty trips. His inability to find a rhythm offensively overshadowed his playmaking and fueled opponent fast breaks. The offensive struggles entirely negated his otherwise solid defensive (+4.5) contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.9%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 34.1m -22.2
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 31.3m
35
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.5

A blistering perimeter barrage punished drop coverages and late closeouts to nearly triple his recent scoring average. His impeccable shot selection fueled an elite offensive impact (+33.2 Box), completely warping the opponent's defensive scheme. The sheer gravity and efficiency of his scoring carried his overall rating despite modest defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +33.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 31.3m -20.4
Impact +15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 30.9m
10
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.4

A barrage of empty possessions from missed jumpers severely dragged down his overall rating. His inability to generate stops or high-value hustle plays left him exposed on the defensive end (-0.5). The sheer volume of clanked perimeter shots killed offensive flow and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 30.9m -20.1
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luke Kornet 27.7m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Crucial stability in the paint and highly efficient interior finishing anchored his positive impact. By avoiding costly mistakes and capitalizing on high-percentage looks, he maximized his value around the rim. His defensive presence (+4.7) deterred drivers and secured the restricted area during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 27.7m -18.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Steady, efficient shot creation provided reliable secondary offense without dominating the ball. He blended perfectly into the team's flow, balancing his scoring with solid hustle (+2.2) and defensive (+1.8) metrics. His ability to capitalize on defensive rotations kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 22.4m -14.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

A lack of offensive aggression and inability to disrupt the opponent's flow limited his effectiveness. He simply didn't generate enough positive events or hustle plays to offset minor defensive lapses (-1.1). The passive approach prevented him from establishing any meaningful rhythm on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 15.6m -10.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 15.3m
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.9

Exceptional defensive (+6.9) and hustle (+5.2) metrics drove a massive positive rating in a highly disruptive stint. He continued his streak of highly efficient scoring by maximizing his touches without forcing bad looks. His relentless point-of-attack pressure created a significant momentum shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.9
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 15.3m -10.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 12.5m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Veteran savvy and capable defensive positioning (+2.6) yielded a positive return in limited action. He capitalized on his few offensive touches, providing a noticeable scoring upgrade over his recent average without forcing the issue. His presence helped stabilize the second unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 12.5m -8.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

A lack of peripheral stats and virtually zero hustle plays (+0.2) caused his overall impact to slip into the negative. Despite perfect shooting in a brief appearance, he failed to generate any meaningful defensive disruption. The minimal court time wasn't enough to establish a positive rhythm beyond a single offensive sequence.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 7.9m -5.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Solid defensive positioning (+2.5) buoyed a brief, low-impact stint. He managed to tread water by avoiding costly mistakes and hitting a timely perimeter shot. His overall involvement was too limited to swing the game, but he provided stable rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 5.8m -3.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0