GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 35.1m
15
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-IQ weakside rotations and timely helpside blocks fueled a highly disruptive defensive performance. He let the game come to him offensively, scoring efficiently within the flow of the system rather than forcing isolation plays.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 35.1m -15.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Max Christie 33.3m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Getting caught on screens and losing his man off the ball created defensive breakdowns that outweighed his steady offensive contributions. Despite picking his spots well on the perimeter, his rotational lapses gave up too many easy angles to the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 33.3m -15.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S P.J. Washington 28.6m
9
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Active hands and physical box-outs generated extra possessions, but he squandered that goodwill with poor decision-making on the offensive end. Settling for heavily contested mid-range looks instead of attacking closeouts dragged down his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +5.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 28.6m -13.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Klay Thompson 21.7m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Forced heavily contested perimeter shots early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the offensive flow. While he competed hard on closeouts, the inability to punish defensive lapses with his jumper rendered him a stark net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 21.7m -9.8
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Davis 6.6m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

An abbreviated shift was defined by immediate rim protection, altering multiple shots in the paint during his brief time on the floor. He operated strictly as a finisher on offense before exiting early.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 6.6m -3.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.3

Relentless rim-running and elite screen-setting completely warped the opposing defense, opening up massive driving lanes for the guards. His phenomenal energy on the offensive glass and physical interior defense drove a dominant two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +8.1
Defense +8.8
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 29.4m -13.3
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Complete passivity on the offensive end allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Failing to apply any rim pressure or perimeter gravity made him an offensive liability that the team could not overcome during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 22.5m -10.2
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Slicing through the defense with aggressive straight-line drives put constant pressure on the rim and yielded highly efficient scoring. He maintained excellent body control through contact, punishing defenders who were slow to rotate.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 22.2m -10.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

Over-dribbling in the half-court stalled the offense and allowed the defense to reset, neutralizing his decent shooting splits. He showed flashes of engagement defensively, but struggled to navigate ball screens effectively.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 19.7m -8.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Caleb Martin 13.0m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Tenacious on-ball pressure completely disrupted the opponent's secondary unit, forcing rushed decisions and broken plays. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by making quick, decisive cuts to the basket for easy finishes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 13.0m -5.9
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A lack of off-ball movement and defensive intensity made for a highly forgettable stint. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game, resulting in disjointed offensive sets before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 7.9m -3.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Aaron Nesmith 36.9m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.5

An absolute crater of an offensive performance, as a barrage of forced, contested perimeter looks tanked his overall value. While he fought hard on the margins with loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of empty possessions made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/16 (12.5%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense -7.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 36.9m -16.8
Impact -15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 36.9m
27
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

Defensive rotations and paint protection anchored a massive positive defensive impact score, easily offsetting a highly inefficient shooting night. His willingness to absorb contact and create second-chance opportunities kept the offense afloat despite the heavy volume of missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 36.9m -16.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarace Walker 35.7m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.7

Perimeter shooting kept his offensive rating afloat, but a brutal inability to finish inside the arc dragged down his overall efficiency. He salvaged his overall impact through elite defensive versatility, consistently disrupting passing lanes to generate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 35.7m -16.0
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ben Sheppard 25.0m
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Cold shooting from the perimeter severely limited his floor-spacing gravity and bogged down the half-court offense. He failed to generate enough defensive disruption or secondary playmaking to make up for the string of empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 25.0m -11.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaiah Jackson 11.4m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely erased a perfectly fine offensive stint. Opposing bigs exploited his positioning in the drop coverage, leading to a steep negative impact during his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -47.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.8
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 11.4m -5.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
RayJ Dennis 30.0m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.4

Spacing the floor with confident catch-and-shoot execution forced defenders to stick to him on the perimeter. However, a lack of resistance at the point of attack on defense allowed guards to blow by him, muting what was otherwise a stellar offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 30.0m -13.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 21.0m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite rim deterrence anchored the interior defense, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters and kick-outs. That defensive presence was desperately needed to offset a clunky offensive rhythm where he struggled to establish deep post position.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 21.0m -9.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless energy on loose balls and transition sprints provided a steady lift for the second unit. He stayed within his role, taking high-percentage looks at the rim rather than settling for contested jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 17.6m -8.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tony Bradley 12.9m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Excellent screen-setting and rim-running maximized his short stint on the floor. He punished defensive rotations by sealing his man deep in the paint, generating highly efficient looks without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 12.9m -5.8
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mac McClung 12.6m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Aggressive point-of-attack defense disrupted the opposing team's offensive initiation, sparking several fast-break opportunities. He capitalized on those chaotic sequences by attacking downhill before the defense could set.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 12.6m -5.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0