GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
31
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+18.3

Surgical precision in the midrange and an ability to consistently collapse the defense drove a sky-high offensive rating. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages effortlessly, forcing the defense into impossible decisions all night. His steady two-way execution continues to be the undisputed engine of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +27.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 29.0m -17.7
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 27.3m
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.2

Smothering perimeter defense completely short-circuited the opponent's transition game and generated multiple live-ball turnovers. He perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass with timely, opportunistic cuts to the basket. The combination of elite hustle and flawless role execution resulted in a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +12.1
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 27.3m -16.6
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 25.8m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless screen navigation and physical point-of-attack defense completely smothered his primary assignment. His elite hustle metrics reflect multiple loose-ball recoveries that extended critical possessions. The defensive dominance far outweighed his continued struggles to connect from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 25.8m -15.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.6

Dominating the interior with punishing screens and elite rim protection set the physical tone for the entire game. He shattered his recent scoring averages by aggressively rolling to the basket and punishing late rotations. This was a masterclass in generating high-value impact through sheer paint dominance.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +6.5
Defense +8.7
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 25.7m -15.6
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Wiggins 24.3m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.5

A brutal perimeter shooting slump destroyed his offensive gravity and allowed defenders to pack the paint. Forcing contested jumpers early in the clock consistently derailed the team's offensive flow. Even solid defensive execution couldn't salvage the massive deficit created by his empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 24.3m -14.8
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless downhill attacking forced the defense into constant rotation, generating high-value opportunities despite his own inefficient finishing. He made up for the missed jumpers by crashing the glass and fighting through screens. The sheer volume of offensive pressure he applied ultimately yielded a positive net result.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 30.1m -18.3
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 24.1m
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.7

Lethal off-ball movement and lightning-quick releases punished every defensive lapse on the perimeter. His gravity as a spacer completely opened up the driving lanes for his teammates. Adding active hands in passing lanes elevated this from a mere shooting exhibition to a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 24.1m -14.7
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Elite positional awareness on the defensive end, including perfectly timed charges, anchored the second unit's success. Spacing the floor from the top of the arc drew opposing bigs out of the paint, even when his shots weren't falling. The high defensive IQ easily masked a subpar shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +9.3
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 22.2m -13.5
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Alex Caruso 16.7m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

A complete offensive zero whose inability to hit open looks allowed defenders to blatantly double-team elsewhere. While his point-of-attack defense remained typically disruptive, the spacing issues he caused on the other end were simply too severe. The offensive liability ultimately dragged his overall rating firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 16.7m -10.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A failure to quickly adapt to the game's pace left him completely marginalized during his brief rotation. He was caught out of position defensively multiple times, leading to easy opponent scores. The inability to make a decisive read stalled the offense and earned him a quick hook.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +57.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 5.7m -3.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a brief but stable defensive presence, utilizing his length to disrupt a few passing lanes. He never asserted himself offensively, acting merely as a ball-mover on the perimeter. The limited run prevented him from building on his recent high-scoring momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 5.4m -3.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maximized a tiny rotational window by immediately capitalizing on a perimeter breakdown for a clean look. He executed his defensive assignments without error during the brief stint. It was a perfectly efficient, albeit microscopic, contribution to the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 30.5m
12
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.2

A highly deceptive performance where efficient perimeter shooting was completely negated by costly mistakes in the margins. Hidden negatives like poorly timed turnovers and defensive breakdowns in transition cratered his overall rating. He gave back every advantage he created on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 30.5m -18.8
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Alex Sarr 26.0m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Anchoring the interior yielded a massive defensive rating that kept his team afloat during crucial stretches. He finally broke out of a recent scoring slump by finding high-percentage looks around the rim rather than settling. His rim-protection presence dictated the opponent's shot selection all night.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 26.0m -15.9
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.4m
16
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Elite point-of-attack defense defined this outing, completely disrupting the opponent's primary actions. He capitalized on transition opportunities generated by his own stops, showing a much more aggressive offensive mentality than in recent games. The two-way synergy resulted in a highly positive floor impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.9
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 24.4m -14.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S CJ McCollum 24.0m
19
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Perimeter shot-making heavily inflated his box score metrics, masking a performance that was otherwise pedestrian in the margins. His inability to contain dribble penetration limited his overall net positive. The scoring punch was essential, but he bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 24.0m -14.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 19.6m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Defensive liabilities severely dragged down his overall impact despite a few solid hustle plays. He remains mired in a passive offensive stretch, struggling to generate meaningful separation or create advantages. The lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to easily sag off him.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense -2.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 19.6m -11.9
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Johnson 26.7m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

Defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness heavily penalized his overall rating. While he found a few clean looks from deep, he was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions on the other end. Those defensive breakdowns completely erased his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.8
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 26.7m -16.2
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.8

An abysmal offensive showing was punctuated by forced perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. Failing to generate any downhill pressure, his inability to collapse the defense stalled the entire unit. The resulting empty possessions fueled a massive negative swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -6.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -5.5
Avg player in 21.9m -13.3
Impact -18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

A lack of off-ball movement made him easy to guard and neutralized his primary weapon as a floor spacer. Settling for heavily contested looks rather than moving the ball led to empty trips that hurt the team's momentum. He offered virtually no resistance or secondary playmaking to offset the cold shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -31.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 19.6m -12.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

A stark drop in offensive aggression limited his influence, snapping a recent streak of dominant interior play. He struggled to establish deep post position, allowing the defense to push him out of his comfort zone. Soft interior defense further muted his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 16.2m -9.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Whitmore 15.1m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Tunnel vision on drives resulted in several forced attempts into heavy traffic, dragging down his offensive value. He failed to recognize open shooters when the defense collapsed on his slashes. A few timely defensive rotations kept his overall impact from completely cratering.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 15.1m -9.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 4.9m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Completely neutralized by early foul trouble or rotational decisions, halting his recent scoring tear. He never found the rhythm or spacing needed to operate in his usual spots. The zero-impact hustle metrics reflect a surprisingly passive approach in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 4.9m -2.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief and entirely invisible stint snapped a promising stretch of highly efficient play. He failed to register a single hustle play or defensive disruption during his minutes. The lack of energy in a short burst made him an easy target for quick substitutions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Managed to squeeze out a net-positive rating through sheer offensive opportunism in a tiny window of playing time. He capitalized on a defensive breakdown for a quick score but otherwise floated on the perimeter. The sample size was too small to establish any real rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 3.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled to initiate any meaningful offense during a disjointed rotational cameo. He was easily bumped off his driving lines, resulting in a stagnant half-court set. A slight defensive edge wasn't enough to rescue a thoroughly unproductive stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0