GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 33.4m
29
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

Torching drop coverages with a lethal midrange pull-up game fueled a massive spike in his scoring efficiency. However, his overall impact (+3.2) was heavily suppressed by defensive miscommunications and a tendency to bleed points in transition. The sheer brilliance of his shot-making barely kept his overall value positive despite the defensive leakage.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 33.4m -21.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Scottie Barnes 32.8m
31
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.5

Absolute dominance as a point-forward dictated the tempo of the entire game, leveraging his size to bully smaller wings in the paint. His staggering +16.5 net impact was driven by elite hustle (+6.1) and flawless shot selection that completely shattered his recent scoring averages. By consistently collapsing the defense and making the right reads, he engineered a masterclass in offensive initiation.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +6.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 32.8m -21.1
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 76.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 32.8m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.4

Forcing contested drives into a set defense resulted in a brutal string of missed shots and killed the team's offensive rhythm. This poor shot selection and inability to finish through contact cratered his net impact to a dismal -10.4. While his defensive effort (+4.5) remained commendable, it couldn't salvage the damage done by his offensive tunnel vision.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 32.8m -21.1
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.9

Frenetic energy on the perimeter generated impressive hustle metrics (+6.3), but his decision-making in the half-court was highly erratic. A slew of unforced passing errors and stalled offensive possessions dragged his overall impact deeply into the red (-5.9). His inability to organize the offense during crucial late-game stretches ultimately outweighed his individual scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 30.6m -19.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing, he capitalized on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks. The positive offensive contributions were entirely erased by poor pick-and-roll defensive positioning (-1.8), leading to a slightly negative overall impact (-1.0). Opposing guards consistently targeted his heavy feet in space during the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense -1.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 25.2m -16.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 19.8m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

A prolonged and severe shooting slump continued to plague his profile, as clanking wide-open perimeter looks completely destroyed the team's floor spacing. Opponents aggressively helped off him to crowd the paint, directly fueling his abysmal -9.8 net impact. Without the threat of his jumper falling, his presence on the court became a massive offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 19.8m -12.7
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 18.6m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.4

Over-dribbling against set pressure bogged down the second-unit offense and led to several costly shot-clock violations. His severe -8.4 net impact was a direct result of these empty possessions and an inability to keep opposing guards in front of him (-0.7 defense). The lack of playmaking vision severely handicapped the team's momentum whenever he initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 18.6m -12.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Soft touches around the rim and smart off-ball cutting allowed him to maintain strong offensive efficiency during his rotation minutes. However, his net impact hovered just below neutral (-0.2) because he struggled to anchor the defensive glass, giving up crucial second-chance points. The tidy scoring line masked his physical limitations when matched up against traditional bigs.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 16.3m -10.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Complete offensive passivity defined his minutes, as he routinely passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim. He mitigated the damage of his scoring drought through highly disciplined perimeter defense (+3.9) and fighting through screens. Ultimately, his refusal to assert himself offensively resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint (-1.1).

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 16.1m -10.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Invisible on the offensive end with zero field goal attempts, he essentially played cardio during his brief stint on the floor. His -2.4 net impact stemmed from a failure to execute dribble hand-offs cleanly, disrupting the offensive flow. He failed to register a single hustle play, looking entirely out of sync with the pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 7.4m -4.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

A disastrously brief stint on the floor saw him repeatedly lose his man on backdoor cuts, hemorrhaging points in a hurry. His total impact plummeted to -4.6 in under seven minutes due to these blown defensive assignments and a complete lack of offensive involvement. He was quickly pulled after failing to establish any physical presence on the wing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 6.8m -4.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 40.0m
18
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.8

Elite point-of-attack pressure and relentless transition rim-runs characterized a highly active two-way performance. Even with massive hustle (+6.2) and defensive (+7.0) contributions, his net impact dipped slightly below zero (-0.8) due to spacing issues and half-court turnovers when forced to operate as the primary initiator. His athletic tools were undeniable, but erratic decision-making in traffic capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 40.0m -25.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
25
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.9

A massive surge in offensive aggression broke him out of a recent shooting slump, as he confidently attacked closeouts and generated high-quality looks. His defensive versatility (+6.3) anchored the frontcourt, allowing Houston to switch seamlessly on the perimeter without giving up driving lanes. This combination of decisive shot selection and disruptive weak-side help fueled a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.3
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 37.8m -24.4
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 36.8m
31
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Perimeter isolation dominance defined his offensive night, consistently punishing late closeouts to elevate his scoring well above his recent baseline. Despite the elite shooting efficiency, his overall net impact (+2.0) was dragged down by sluggish transition defense and a few costly live-ball turnovers. The sheer volume of his shot creation ultimately kept his value in the green.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 36.8m -23.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 35.1m
18
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.8

Operating as the offensive hub out of the high post, his elite processing speed easily dismantled the opponent's zone coverages. What truly drove his massive +8.8 net impact, however, was his phenomenal positional defense (+11.0) and active hands disrupting passing lanes. He maximized his touches with flawless shot selection, continuing a dominant trend of hyper-efficient interior scoring.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.0
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 35.1m -22.7
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 23.5m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and diving for loose balls generated significant hustle value (+4.8) during the second quarter. Even with a massive spike in his offensive production, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-1.6) due to over-aggressive closeouts that led to costly shooting fouls. The scoring burst was ultimately offset by this defensive undiscipline.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 23.5m -15.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 22.9m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Chaotic energy in the passing lanes provided a solid defensive boost (+5.0), but that same lack of control severely hurt the offensive flow. Forced drives into crowded paint areas and subsequent live-ball turnovers dragged his overall impact into the red (-3.1). While his motor never stopped running, poor spatial awareness during key second-half stretches negated his hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.9m -14.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
Steven Adams 19.7m
12
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.6

Brutalizing the interior with bone-crushing screens and relentless offensive rebounding completely altered the geometry of the half-court offense. This physical dominance translated to a staggering +15.6 net impact in under 20 minutes of action. By generating constant second-chance opportunities and walling off the paint, he single-handedly broke the opposing frontcourt's will.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 19.7m -12.6
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A severe perimeter shooting slump neutralized his usual floor-spacing gravity, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. He managed to salvage a near-neutral impact (-0.5) by executing crisp defensive rotations and maintaining active hands (+3.5 defense). The inability to connect from deep ultimately defined a frustrating offensive outing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.1m -11.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Serving as an effective lob threat during a brief first-half stint, he forced the defense to respect the vertical spacing. This short burst of rim gravity yielded a highly efficient +3.2 net impact before he returned to the bench. He executed his narrow role perfectly without forcing bad shots or missing defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 6.1m -4.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0