GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 37.9m
32
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.5

An absolute two-way masterclass defined by relentless off-ball movement and suffocating weak-side defense. He punished mismatches on the perimeter and used his length to completely shut down the paint on the other end. This was a textbook example of a star dictating the terms of engagement on every single possession.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +11.0
Raw total +40.8
Avg player in 37.9m -24.3
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
S Keyonte George 32.0m
29
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
0.0

High-usage playmaking was completely neutralized by defensive bleeding at the point of attack. While he generated plenty of offense, he routinely died on screens, allowing straight-line drives that handed points right back to the opponent. It was a classic break-even performance where the scoring volume masked structural defensive flaws.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 15/15 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 32.0m -20.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Walker Kessler 31.8m
18
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.1

Stepping out to hit from beyond the arc added a lethal new dimension to his traditional rim-running profile. That unexpected floor spacing, combined with his usual elite rim protection, completely warped the opposing game plan. He dominated the interior while simultaneously breaking the defense from the outside.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 31.8m -20.4
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 23.0m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite decent shooting efficiency, his minutes were plagued by poor floor mapping and mistimed cuts that stalled the offensive flow. He frequently found himself occupying the same space as the primary ball-handlers, leading to stagnant possessions. Those spacing errors compounded quickly, tanking his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 23.0m -14.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 15.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Saw a massive drop in his usual offensive volume, but salvaged his impact score through disciplined positional defense. Opponents respected his recent hot streak, aggressively denying him the ball and forcing him into a decoy role. He adapted well by setting solid screens and executing the scheme rather than forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 15.6m -9.9
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Clunky finishing around the basket and forced post-ups derailed several promising offensive sequences. He tried to bully his way through double teams instead of kicking the ball out to open shooters. Those empty, inefficient possessions in the paint ultimately dragged his impact score down.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 16.2m -10.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor shot selection and an inability to create separation doomed his time on the floor. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense. That lack of offensive discipline was the primary driver behind his steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 16.0m -10.2
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ace Bailey 15.4m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Struggled to find his rhythm in a reduced role, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. The defense successfully crowded his airspace, taking away his preferred driving angles and limiting his overall influence on the game. He never managed to string together enough positive plays to break out of the funk.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 15.4m -9.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Bricklaying from the perimeter allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. While his length provided some genuine disruption on the defensive end, it wasn't enough to overcome the offensive spacing issues he created. His inability to punish open closeouts was the defining flaw of this stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 14.7m -9.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

A startling lack of aggression completely erased his usual scoring punch. He floated on the perimeter instead of hunting his spots, allowing the defense to easily scheme him out of the primary actions. Without his typical downhill force, his overall impact faded into the negatives.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 13.6m -8.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

An absolute terror on the defensive end who swung the momentum entirely through grit and positioning. He didn't need to score a single point to be highly effective, instead generating value by blowing up dribble hand-offs and diving for loose balls. It was a blue-collar shift that perfectly executed the coach's defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +60.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 11.9m -7.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Defensive miscommunications and a total lack of physical resistance at the point of attack resulted in a disastrous net rating. Opposing wings targeted him relentlessly in isolation, easily turning the corner and collapsing the defense. His perfect shooting clip was entirely overshadowed by how much he bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +57.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.6
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 11.9m -7.6
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 35.5m
27
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.5

Masterful offensive orchestration and clinical shot-making drove a highly productive shift. He systematically dismantled the point-of-attack defense, getting to his spots at will while keeping the ball moving. It was a vintage display of veteran pacing that stabilized the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 35.5m -22.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Deni Avdija 34.0m
19
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.4

Despite active hands generating strong defensive and hustle metrics, perimeter struggles cratered his overall impact. Missing all of his attempts from beyond the arc created massive spacing issues that bogged down the half-court offense. His typical scoring rhythm completely vanished when forced to play from the outside.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 34.0m -21.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Toumani Camara 31.4m
17
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

Relentless energy on the margins kept his net impact in the green despite forcing some tough looks from the perimeter. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort, crashing the glass and disrupting passing lanes. That high-motor approach defined his rotational value here.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +7.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 31.4m -20.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 27.7m
5
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Rim deterrence was the absolute calling card of this performance, anchoring the interior to drive a massive defensive rating. While his touch around the basket was lacking, his sheer size altered countless drives and erased opponent advantages. He proved you don't need offensive polish to swing a game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.7m -17.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Shaedon Sharpe 24.3m
18
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Defensive lapses and empty-calorie scoring ultimately dragged his net rating into the red. He found great success spotting up from deep, but gave those points right back by losing his man on backdoor cuts and late rotations. The raw offensive talent is undeniable, yet the two-way execution remains highly inconsistent.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 24.3m -15.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jerami Grant 24.8m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

A heavy diet of contested mid-range jumpers tanked his efficiency and dragged down his overall impact. While he managed to draw enough defensive attention to open up the floor slightly, the sheer volume of forced shots stalled out several key possessions. Better shot selection would have easily flipped his net score into the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 24.8m -15.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Blake Wesley 19.9m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Aggressive downhill attacks and phenomenal hustle metrics fueled a breakout showing well above his usual baseline. He completely flipped the energy of the second unit by fighting through screens and winning crucial 50/50 balls. This was the exact type of spark-plug performance the coaching staff has been waiting for.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 19.9m -12.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 13.7m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Strong on-ball defensive pressure was entirely offset by a passive approach on the other end of the floor. He routinely passed up open looks, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. Finding a baseline level of offensive aggression is necessary to keep him on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 13.7m -8.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 12.2m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt was the primary catalyst for his positive rating tonight. By consistently popping out and knocking down perimeter looks, he pulled the opposing rim protector away from the basket. That tactical advantage opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 12.2m -7.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 8.1m
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Capitalized on a short leash by making quick, decisive reads to keep the offense humming. He didn't force the issue, instead taking what the defense gave him and connecting the dots on the perimeter. That disciplined approach maximized his limited minutes perfectly and resulted in a massive spike over his usual production.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 8.1m -5.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Absolute defensive havoc in a micro-stint completely derailed the opponent's offensive sets. He blew up passing lanes and applied suffocating ball pressure, generating massive value without needing to look at the rim. It was a masterclass in situational disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 4.7m -3.1
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A brief, ineffective cameo was marred by poor rotational awareness on the defensive end. He looked a step slow tracking assignments in space, leading to quick opponent scores that plummeted his rating in just a few minutes. The game simply moved too fast for him during this stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.8m -2.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1