GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Grayson Allen 36.3m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.3

Bleeding value on the defensive end, he was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions that compromised the entire scheme. The resulting defensive collapses heavily outweighed his perimeter spacing, cratering his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 36.3m -19.7
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Devin Booker 36.2m
32
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Immense offensive gravity warped the opposing defense, creating wide-open looks for teammates despite his own inefficient isolation attempts. His constant off-ball movement and timely defensive closeouts ensured a highly positive overall shift.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 53.4%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 36.2m -19.7
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 34.8m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

Blistering spot-up shooting stretched the floor beautifully, yet his overall impact slipped into the red. Repeated breakdowns in transition defense and a failure to secure long rebounds allowed opponents to capitalize on second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 34.8m -18.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Dunn 27.9m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Excellent weak-side rim rotations fueled a strong defensive score, but spacing issues severely hampered the team's offense when he was on the floor. Opponents essentially ignored him on the perimeter, creating a cramped half-court environment that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 27.9m -15.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Mark Williams 27.7m
20
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+24.1

Utterly dominated the painted area, combining soft touch on lobs with suffocating rim protection. His sheer physical presence altered countless opponent drives, driving an astronomical overall rating that dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +12.6
Raw total +39.1
Avg player in 27.7m -15.0
Impact +24.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Tenacious point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation and fueled a surprisingly high defensive rating. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by making decisive, quick-trigger reads in transition to cement a positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.6
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 30.6m -16.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint against the primary scorers. A lack of assertiveness on the glass further limited his effectiveness during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.3m -7.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 12.3m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Struggled to process defensive reads quickly enough, leading to late rotations and easy dump-off passes for the opposition. The lack of vertical spacing in his offensive rolls further bogged down the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 12.3m -6.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Completely outmuscled on the interior, failing to secure critical defensive rebounds that extended opponent possessions. His inability to establish deep post position rendered him a non-factor offensively and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 11.7m -6.3
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Provided virtually no offensive threat during his brief stint, making it easy for the defense to double-team the ball handlers. Failed to compensate on the other end, getting caught on screens and giving up open perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -59.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 8.1m -4.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite rim protection anchored the defensive metrics and completely deterred interior drives. This massive defensive footprint, combined with high-activity hustle plays, easily offset a few forced perimeter shots.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +11.2
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 31.9m -17.3
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ja Morant 31.6m
28
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.3

Downhill aggression collapsed the opposing defense repeatedly, generating high-quality looks at the rim. His point-of-attack pressure also yielded surprising defensive value, cementing a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.6
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 31.6m -17.2
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jaylen Wells 29.1m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless energy on loose balls generated a massive hustle score that salvaged a rough shooting night. His willingness to do the dirty work on the perimeter kept possessions alive and drove a solid overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +9.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 29.1m -15.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 23.5m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

A sharp drop in offensive efficiency from his recent baseline limited his overall effectiveness. Struggled to anchor the second-unit defense, allowing opponents to exploit the paint and dragging his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 23.5m -12.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.6

Active perimeter engagement drove a highly positive hustle metric, setting the tone defensively. His ability to disrupt passing lanes created transition opportunities that masked some inefficient mid-range attempts.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 18.8m -10.2
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 30.7m
14
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.5

Superb positional awareness in the frontcourt stifled opponent drives and drove a stellar defensive rating. Capitalized on defensive stops by running the floor effectively, maximizing his overall two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 30.7m -16.6
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Defensive rotations were frequently a step slow, bleeding value despite capable offensive execution. The overall negative rating reflects a tendency to get lost in off-ball screens during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 28.5m -15.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Cam Spencer 18.9m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.5

Over-passing in the half-court stalled out several possessions and minimized his scoring threat. While he moved the ball adequately, his lack of defensive resistance on the perimeter dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.9m -10.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 16.5m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Passive offensive involvement allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Failed to generate his usual disruptive deflections, resulting in a distinctly negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 16.5m -8.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Javon Small 10.4m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Completely neutralized by physical point-of-attack defense, leading to stagnant offensive sets during his brief stint. The inability to initiate the offense effectively caused a severe negative swing in the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -67.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.2
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 10.4m -5.8
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2