GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
31
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.9

Relentless rim pressure and elite deceleration completely broke down the primary line of defense. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully, drawing multiple defenders before finding the open man or finishing through contact. His active hands in the passing lanes further amplified a dominant, two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.2
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 35.8m -19.2
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 34.9m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock severely damaged his offensive efficiency. While his physical isolation defense remained stout, those wasted offensive possessions allowed Sacramento to leak out in transition. The poor shot quality ultimately dragged his overall rating into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 34.9m -18.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Wiggins 33.7m
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.1

Exceptional off-ball movement routinely punished defenders who fell asleep on the weak side. He capitalized on defensive rotations by decisively attacking closeouts and making the extra pass when the lane closed. That high-IQ offensive processing paired perfectly with his disciplined closeouts on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 33.7m -18.0
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
4
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elite drop coverage and rim deterrence completely altered the geometry of the opponent's offense. He consistently forced ball-handlers into tough mid-range floaters while vacuuming up defensive boards to end possessions. Even with minimal offensive usage, his sheer presence in the paint dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +12.9
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 30.8m -16.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 26.6m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

Struggling to navigate ball pressure resulted in stagnant offensive sets and late-clock desperation heaves. He was frequently caught out of position on defensive rotations, surrendering open corner looks that punished the team's scheme. Those compounding mistakes on both ends led to a steep negative impact during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 26.6m -14.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Defensive miscommunications in transition frequently left him trailing the play and conceding easy advantages. While he found success attacking downhill in the half-court, his tendency to over-dribble into traffic led to costly empty trips. The resulting momentum swings kept his overall rating firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.1m -12.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Alex Caruso 23.6m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Game-changing havoc creation defined his minutes, highlighted by multiple deflections that ignited fast breaks. He navigated screens flawlessly to deny dribble hand-offs, effectively blowing up the opponent's primary offensive actions. This supreme level of disruption required minimal shooting volume to yield a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +10.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 23.6m -12.7
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

Taking multiple charges and executing perfect weak-side rotations completely salvaged an otherwise brutal shooting night. He provided crucial structural support to the interior defense, consistently being in the right spot to deter drives. That elite positional awareness ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brief rotation was marred by slow closeouts and an inability to stay in front of quicker guards. He looked hesitant within the offensive flow, forcing a heavily contested look rather than keeping the ball moving. Those quick lapses were immediately punished by the opposing second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -58.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 6.8m -3.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Capitalized on a broken play by sealing his man deep in the paint for a quick conversion. He held his ground adequately on the defensive end during a short stint, avoiding any glaring mistakes. A perfectly fine, low-usage cameo that kept the ship steady.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +65.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Getting targeted immediately upon checking in led to a quick defensive breakdown. He failed to navigate a baseline screen, giving up a wide-open look that forced a quick substitution. There simply wasn't enough time to correct the early error.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 35.2m
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite efficient perimeter shooting, his overall value plummeted due to careless ball security in transition. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that erased his offensive contributions. A negative overall rating reflects how much he gave back on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 35.2m -18.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

An inability to finish through contact around the rim severely depressed his offensive impact. While he anchored the defensive glass and walled off the paint effectively, those empty offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. Forcing contested hooks into heavy coverage ultimately outweighed his high-level rim protection.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.4
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 35.2m -18.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S DeMar DeRozan 33.4m
19
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.6

Methodical isolation scoring anchored the half-court offense, but his off-ball engagement really drove this positive rating. He disrupted passing lanes effectively and consistently boxed out larger forwards to secure long rebounds. That two-way stability kept the unit afloat during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 33.4m -17.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.2

Getting hunted continuously in pick-and-roll coverage cratered his overall impact. He struggled to navigate screens, forcing emergency rotations that left shooters wide open on the perimeter. A lack of offensive creation could not mask the defensive bleeding during his stints.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 31.7m -17.0
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Wild drives into congested paint resulted in low-quality looks and live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's transition game. Even with an uncharacteristically hot hand from the perimeter, his erratic decision-making in the half-court dragged the offense down. The defensive metrics look solid, but his gambles for steals often compromised the team's shell.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 30.3m -16.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 26.9m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Relentless point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm. He generated extra possessions by diving for loose balls and fighting through multiple screens to contest shooters. That elite defensive motor easily compensated for a few forced floaters in the lane.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 26.9m -14.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 21.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Malik Monk 25.7m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.4

Perimeter containment issues defined his minutes, as he routinely allowed straight-line drives to the basket. His shot selection was overly reliant on contested pull-ups early in the shot clock, short-circuiting the offensive flow. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opposition to dictate the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 25.7m -13.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Drew Eubanks 12.8m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Operating strictly as a positional defender, he maintained verticality at the rim to deter drives during his brief rotation. However, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against primary ball-handlers. The resulting spacing issues slightly tipped his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.2%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 12.8m -6.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Instant defensive energy shifted the momentum during a crucial first-half stint. He blew up two dribble hand-offs and stayed glued to his assignment off the ball, completely neutralizing his matchup. Making the most of limited run, his flawless execution of the defensive scheme drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 8.8m -4.7
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1