GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 38.9m
28
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brutal night from beyond the arc completely neutralized his high-volume scoring efforts. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts resulted in a slew of wasted possessions. The sheer number of missed threes acted as live-ball turnovers, sparking opponent fast breaks and dragging his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/13 (15.4%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 38.9m -22.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 35.6m
31
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.2

Brilliant shot creation and decisive rim attacks fueled a highly potent offensive showing. He masterfully navigated pick-and-roll coverages, punishing drop defenses with pull-up jumpers while still finding angles to attack the basket. Timely hustle plays and adequate point-of-attack defense ensured his scoring barrage translated to a positive net gain.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 35.6m -20.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jusuf Nurkić 27.4m
9
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.5

Dominant interior positioning and elite defensive anchoring drove a highly productive shift. He consistently deterred drives at the rim and utilized his massive frame to seal off rebounding angles. Excellent passing out of the high post kept the offense humming even when he wasn't looking for his own shot.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.7
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 27.4m -15.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 23.2m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite knocking down shots at a respectable clip, hidden costs like poorly timed turnovers dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, forcing the defense into constant rotation. The scoring dip from his previous outing highlighted his inability to consistently create his own shot.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 23.2m -13.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 16.6m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Passive offensive decision-making severely limited his effectiveness during his time on the floor. Falling well short of his usual scoring punch, he frequently passed up open looks and allowed the defense to reset. While his individual defense held up, the lack of offensive aggression stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 16.6m -9.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Efficient mid-range execution powered his scoring, but defensive lapses kept his overall impact dangerously close to neutral. He consistently found soft spots in the zone, yet struggled to navigate screens on the other end of the floor. The resulting defensive breakdowns nearly negated all the value generated by his smooth offensive game.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 27.7m -16.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.3

A stark drop in offensive aggression rendered him largely ineffective despite solid defensive metrics. He deferred too often in the half-court, failing to pressure the rim and settling into a passive playmaking role. The lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to clog passing lanes, ultimately dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 23.7m -13.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Opposing game plans successfully neutralized his usual scoring barrage by aggressively fronting him in the post. Despite the dramatic dip in offensive production, he salvaged a positive impact through sheer effort on loose balls and high-motor hustle plays. His willingness to set bruising screens created valuable separation for the guards when his own shot wasn't available.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense 0.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 20.8m -12.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevin Love 17.4m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

Veteran savvy and impeccable defensive positioning sparked a massive surge off the bench. He completely reversed his recent shooting woes by picking his spots perfectly and capitalizing on defensive breakdowns. His ability to secure contested long rebounds and immediately trigger transition opportunities was the defining element of his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 17.4m -10.0
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Offensive invisibility completely derailed his brief stint in the rotation. While he brought commendable energy and defensive intensity, his inability to generate any scoring threat bogged down the second unit. The complete lack of production forced the coaching staff to look elsewhere for a spark.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 8.6m -4.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 44.6m
23
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle plays drove a massive positive impact during his marathon minutes. Even with his perimeter jumper failing to connect, he found ways to generate highly efficient looks inside the arc. His ability to anchor the wing defense completely neutralized the opposition's primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.6m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +10.0
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 44.6m -25.7
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 38.9m
34
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.6

High-volume scoring masked a deeply flawed overall performance that yielded a negative net impact. Defensive lapses and poor closeouts consistently gave back the points he generated on the offensive end. His shot selection was brilliant in isolation, but the lack of resistance on the perimeter proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 38.9m -22.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 36.0m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Hidden costs like poorly timed turnovers and defensive miscommunications completely tanked his overall impact despite decent shooting efficiency. He struggled to generate his usual offensive gravity, falling well below his recent scoring average. The lack of volume ultimately prevented him from offsetting those costly mistakes on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 36.0m -20.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
12
reb
14
ast
Impact
+9.3

Relentless energy and elite defensive pressure defined a massive bounce-back performance. He shattered his recent offensive slump by aggressively attacking the paint and collapsing the defense to create high-quality looks for teammates. The sheer volume of hustle plays and deflections far outweighed the damage from his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +10.0
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 33.1m -19.1
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Drew Eubanks 13.0m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A complete lack of offensive involvement doomed his short stint on the floor. While he provided solid rotational rim protection, the inability to finish plays around the basket resulted in empty possessions. Opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter to aggressively clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 13.0m -7.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Continuing a blistering streak of interior efficiency, he punished mismatches in the post with excellent shot selection. His ability to finish through contact generated high-value possessions while anchoring a highly effective second-unit offense. Solid positional defense ensured those offensive gains weren't surrendered in transition.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 21.5m -12.4
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Malik Monk 20.7m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

Stagnant off-ball movement and forced perimeter jumpers led to a highly damaging offensive stint. Failing to generate his usual scoring punch, he settled for contested looks early in the shot clock that short-circuited the offense. The resulting long rebounds consistently put the transition defense in compromised positions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 20.7m -11.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

An abrupt collapse in offensive execution derailed his impact, snapping a strong run of highly efficient performances. Forced shots in traffic and an inability to finish at the rim created empty possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks. While his defensive rotations remained sharp, the offensive cratering was too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 19.2m -11.1
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Keon Ellis 7.5m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Defensive breakdowns and a total lack of offensive rhythm made for a disastrous rotation shift. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving up straight-line drives to the rim without much resistance. Missing his few perimeter attempts only magnified the damage of his defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 7.5m -4.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Complete offensive invisibility plagued his brief appearance on the court. He failed to register a single shot attempt, allowing defenders to aggressively stunt away from him and disrupt the primary actions. A lack of defensive resistance further compounded the negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -92.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 5.7m -3.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0