GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
31
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+37.6

Generational defensive metrics (+15.3) anchored a dominant two-way performance. He completely erased the paint, altering countless shots and forcing the opponent into low-percentage floaters. Despite some offensive inefficiency, his sheer rim-protection gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.2%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +19.7
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +12.9
Defense +7.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 6
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 35.4m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Strong perimeter shot-making and active hustle (+4.2) couldn't prevent a negative overall impact. He bled value through defensive miscommunications and transition lapses that aren't captured in the raw shooting splits. The scoring punch was evident, but the lineup surrendered too many easy looks during his tenure.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Hyper-efficient spot-up shooting drove a massive box score rating, yet his overall impact hovered right around neutral. He capitalized perfectly on the gravity of his teammates but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. The scoring was pristine, but the defensive give-and-take balanced the scales.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 102.8%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 30.1m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+10.9) defined a relentlessly physical shift. He generated extra possessions through sheer willpower, diving for loose balls and crashing the glass. However, a slight dip in his usual offensive aggression kept his total impact just below the break-even point.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Harrison Barnes 25.2m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.2

An abysmal shooting night from the perimeter completely tanked his value. He repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to aggressively pack the paint. The resulting lack of spacing suffocated the team's half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Dylan Harper 29.3m
20
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.7

Elite offensive orchestration and surgical finishing drove a massive positive impact (+19.4). He consistently broke down the primary defender, collapsing the defense to create high-value looks for himself and others. Adding in superb hustle (+6.7), this was a masterclass in two-way backcourt control.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +58.5
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+21.0

Bully-ball drives and timely perimeter shooting fueled a highly productive stint. He thrived in transition, punishing backpedaling defenders before they could set their half-court shell. Solid defensive positioning (+3.5) ensured his offensive outbursts translated directly to the scoreboard.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

A complete zero offensively, his inability to threaten the rim allowed defenders to aggressively double the ball-handler. He failed to generate meaningful screen assists or offensive rebounds to compensate for the lack of scoring. The resulting 4-on-5 dynamic on offense dragged his net impact down.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Struggled to organize the second-unit offense during his limited minutes. His inability to puncture the defense off the dribble led to stagnant, late-clock possessions. The offense noticeably bogged down whenever he was tasked with initiating the sets.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Logged a brief, uneventful stint characterized by high energy but minimal tangible production. He stayed within the flow of the offense but failed to leave a lasting imprint on either end. A placeholder shift that neither hurt nor helped the overall game plan.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
15
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

A high volume of missed jumpers dragged his overall impact into the negative. While he provided solid weak-side defense (+5.5), his shot selection leaned too heavily on contested perimeter looks. The offensive inefficiency ultimately outweighed his defensive rim rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cam Thomas 32.3m
41
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+26.2

An absolute flamethrower offensively, his massive box score impact (+23.8) was entirely fueled by aggressive, high-volume shot creation. He took over the game with a barrage of pull-up jumpers, dictating the opponent's entire defensive scheme. A lack of peripheral hustle stats (+0.0) was the only thing limiting an even higher ceiling.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 14/14 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 44.2%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +31.0
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +8.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Terance Mann 30.6m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Strong defensive metrics (+5.0) kept his overall impact in the green despite a low-usage offensive role. He disrupted perimeter actions effectively, which masked his tendency to pass up open looks. This stabilizing shift provided essential glue-guy value for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 26.2m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Elite rim-running and active hustle (+3.7) drove a highly efficient positive impact. He consistently beat his man down the floor, creating easy lob opportunities that collapsed the defense. Even with a quiet defensive rating, his vertical spacing was a constant threat.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ben Saraf 14.7m
0
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.9

A complete lack of scoring gravity cratered his overall impact despite decent playmaking flashes. He hesitated on open looks and forced passes into traffic, allowing defenders to sag off him completely. The offense noticeably stalled whenever he was tasked with initiating half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring -3.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Clowney 23.8m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Trigger-happy shot selection from beyond the arc punished his overall efficiency. Settling for heavily contested threes rather than attacking closeouts stalled several possessions. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, tanking his net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Egor Dëmin 18.8m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.2

Perimeter inefficiency severely punished his overall rating, as he clanked multiple spot-up opportunities. He tried to compensate with high-energy rotations (+4.2 hustle), but the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome. Opponents essentially ignored him on the weak side to trap the primary ball-handler.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 15.3m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Lethal perimeter efficiency kept his box score impact high, but hidden defensive costs dragged him below neutral. He was targeted repeatedly in pick-and-roll actions, giving back much of what he provided spacing the floor. This was a classic case of offensive value being neutralized by defensive exploitation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Excellent interior defense (+4.2) almost salvaged an otherwise muted performance. He anchored the paint well during his minutes, but a lack of offensive involvement kept his total impact slightly negative. His physical screens were effective, yet he rarely received the ball on the roll.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

A sharp drop-off from his recent scoring tear left his overall impact in the red. He struggled to find rhythm against physical wing defense, resulting in a highly passive offensive approach. Negative defensive metrics (-0.8) further compounded a forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

Failed to generate any momentum during his brief floor time, struggling to convert around the rim. A complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and slight defensive lapses made him a net negative. He was consistently a half-step slow on defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1