GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 27.6m
21
pts
12
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.9

Absolute mastery of offensive angles and elite defensive positioning (+6.1) fueled a dominant, game-breaking performance. He systematically dismantled double-teams, generating flawless looks at the rim while operating with surgical precision from the elbows. His ability to control the tempo single-handedly dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 27.6m -13.2
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 27.2m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Extreme passivity on the perimeter resulted in a massive negative impact despite hitting half his shots. He repeatedly passed up open catch-and-shoot windows, bogging down the offensive flow and halving his usual scoring output. Opponents actively targeted his hesitation, sagging off to clog the driving lanes for others.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 27.2m -13.1
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 27.1m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.4

Relentless transition rim-running and elite hustle (+4.4) catalyzed a massive two-way impact. He constantly beat his man down the floor, converting broken plays into easy layups to spike his scoring average. Tenacious on-ball pressure completely suffocated the opposing backcourt and forced rushed decisions.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 27.1m -13.1
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 25.3m
17
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.2

A sharp regression in shooting efficiency was heavily mitigated by excellent defensive engagement (+3.2) and high-level playmaking. Though he struggled to separate from primary defenders on isolations, he manipulated pick-and-roll coverages beautifully to feed his bigs. This shift from pure scorer to facilitator kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +62.1
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 25.3m -12.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 22.5m
9
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

An inability to finish cleanly around the basket muted his usually dominant baseline presence. While his switchability on defense remained a major plus (+3.0), he fumbled multiple dump-off passes that killed promising possessions. The resulting drop in scoring efficiency left the frontcourt lacking its usual punch.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 22.5m -10.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Defensive dominance (+7.5) and chaotic energy completely overshadowed a steep drop in scoring volume. He operated as a menacing free safety, blowing up passing lanes and erasing shots at the rim with elite weak-side timing. His willingness to defer offensively while anchoring the defense showcased immense maturity.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 22.7m -10.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Bruce Brown 18.6m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Scrappy point-of-attack defense (+6.7) and relentless loose-ball pursuit (+3.5 hustle) drove a highly impactful shift. Even with his scoring output halved, he was the engine of the second unit, generating extra possessions through sheer willpower. He consistently blew up dribble handoffs, completely short-circuiting the opponent's offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 18.6m -8.9
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Catching fire from the perimeter provided a crucial offensive injection that outweighed his defensive shortcomings. He punished late closeouts with confident, in-rhythm triples, breaking out of a recent shooting slump. This microwave scoring burst forced the defense to stretch, opening up the interior.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 14.4m -7.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Bully-ball tactics in the low post yielded highly efficient scoring that anchored the bench unit. He carved out deep position effortlessly, punishing smaller defenders with a barrage of soft jump hooks. This steady interior presence forced defensive collapses that benefited the perimeter shooters.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 14.3m -6.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Snapped out of a scoreless funk by aggressively attacking the paint with his unique, methodical pace. He used his strength to back down smaller guards, generating high-percentage looks in the mid-range. This unexpected scoring punch stabilized the offense during a rocky second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 12.0m -5.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged his overall efficiency. While he doubled his recent meager scoring average, the volume of clanked perimeter attempts allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. He needs to let the game come to him rather than hijacking possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 10.7m -5.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 6.1m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Blown coverages in pick-and-roll situations (-1.7 defense) negated a solid offensive cameo. He repeatedly dropped too deep, surrendering wide-open floaters and pull-up jumpers to opposing guards. Despite finishing well around the rim, he gave those points right back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.7
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 6.1m -2.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Rushing his perimeter mechanics led to a pair of bad misses that instantly killed offensive momentum. He looked lost within the half-court sets, floating on the perimeter without setting meaningful screens. This lack of engagement quickly relegated him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 5.7m -2.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Bleeding points as an on-ball defender (-1.2) completely tanked his brief rotation minutes. Opposing wings easily blew past his closeouts, forcing the defense into emergency rotations that yielded open looks. Offensively, he settled for contested jumpers rather than attacking the shifting defense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 5.7m -2.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 31.7m
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive futility completely tanked his overall impact despite highly engaged perimeter defense (+4.0). Settling for contested looks from deep resulted in a sharp scoring drop-off from his recent baseline. This inability to convert catch-and-shoot opportunities paralyzed the half-court spacing and allowed defenders to sag into the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 31.7m -15.2
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 30.4m
21
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.4

Slicing through drop coverage with elite burst drove a massive offensive rating spike. He consistently generated high-quality looks at the rim, punishing defensive miscommunications all night to maintain his high scoring baseline. Active hands in the passing lanes perfectly complemented his downhill scoring clinic.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 30.4m -14.6
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 26.2m
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

A bizarrely passive offensive approach severely limited his usual rim-pressure gravity, dragging his net rating into the red. While he flashed solid weak-side rotations (+3.8 defense), his reluctance to force the issue through contact left the offense stagnant. He simply didn't demand the ball enough in his typical mismatch situations on the low block.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 26.2m -12.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 20.6m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.1

An uncharacteristically poor defensive showing (-1.6) compounded a dismal shooting night to crater his overall value. He repeatedly bit on pump fakes and struggled to navigate screens, bleeding points on the perimeter. Clanking multiple wide-open corner attempts only worsened the bleeding and killed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.6
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 20.6m -9.9
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeAndre Jordan 12.3m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a modest positive bump through efficient, low-mistake minutes as a traditional roll man. Though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he set sturdy screens and kept the ball moving without forcing bad shots. His veteran positioning masked declining lateral mobility in drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -93.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 12.3m -5.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Yves Missi 23.9m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection (+5.4) defined a breakout performance that more than doubled his usual scoring output. He capitalized on every lob opportunity, finishing through contact with authority. His activity as a weak-side helper completely deterred baseline drives during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/5 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 23.9m -11.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jordan Poole 21.9m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Errant shot selection and forced isolation possessions torpedoed his value once again. Continuing a dismal efficiency trend, he repeatedly hijacked the offense with contested, early-clock pull-ups. The resulting long rebounds consistently ignited opponent transition breaks before the defense could get set.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -74.5
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 21.9m -10.4
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Saddiq Bey 19.1m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Exceptional defensive engagement (+5.9) salvaged a positive impact despite a brutal perimeter shooting slump. He compensated for a massive scoring dip by aggressively fighting over screens and blowing up dribble handoffs. The sheer volume of bricked jumpers was offset entirely by his gritty perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -62.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 19.1m -9.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 14.4m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggling to establish deep post position resulted in a severe scoring drop-off that dragged down his overall rating. He was frequently pushed off his spots by stronger defenders, leading to rushed hook shots. However, his sturdy interior rim protection (+3.8) kept the defensive unit afloat while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 14.4m -6.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

A failure to convert open perimeter looks negated his trademark point-of-attack harassment. While he disrupted opposing ball-handlers effectively (+2.1 defense), his offensive possessions frequently stalled out into forced, late-clock heaves. The lack of scoring punch made him a net negative during key rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -85.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 13.9m -6.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Blanking from the field on rushed perimeter attempts quickly earned him a spot back on the bench. He failed to read closeouts, forcing contested triples instead of attacking the seams. This drastic departure from his recent hot streak completely disrupted the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 7.8m -3.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a brief but effective spark through disciplined defensive rotations (+2.3). He stayed attached to shooters and avoided the foul trouble that has plagued his recent outings. A timely backdoor cut showcased a better understanding of the offensive flow without needing the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 7.8m -3.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Pure energy and relentless off-ball movement drove a highly efficient cameo appearance. By crashing the glass and diving for loose balls (+2.7 hustle), he manufactured value without needing a single field goal attempt. He perfectly executed his role as a high-motor innings eater.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 6.1m -2.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Limited run prevented him from sustaining his recent streak of high-efficiency scoring. He managed to squeeze out a marginal positive impact by maintaining verticality in the paint during his brief stint. The lack of touches simply capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.7m -1.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0