GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
27
pts
18
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.3

Generational defensive presence completely altered the opponent's shot profile at the rim, driving an elite impact score. Despite struggling with his outside stroke, his sheer volume of interior finishes and playmaking from the post overwhelmed the defense. Active rebounding and rim deterrence masked any perimeter inefficiencies.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +12.0
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 39.7m -19.5
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 37.2m
17
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

A heavy reliance on contested three-pointers led to a poor conversion rate, sinking his net impact despite decent scoring volume. He competed hard on the defensive end, staying attached to primary assignments and contesting well. Ultimately, the high number of missed perimeter looks stalled offensive momentum too frequently.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 37.2m -18.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 35.3m
21
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.5

Masterful orchestration of the offense and relentless point-of-attack defense fueled a spectacular two-way performance. He consistently broke down the primary defender to create high-percentage looks, converting efficiently when calling his own number. High-level hustle plays and disciplined closeouts cemented his status as a primary difference-maker.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense +9.5
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 35.3m -17.2
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 30.7m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Inefficient perimeter attempts and a lack of secondary playmaking limited his overall effectiveness. While he provided stable team defense and executed the scheme well, his offensive possessions often stalled out against set defenses. The scoring bump from recent games wasn't enough to offset the empty trips generated by missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 30.7m -14.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Bricklaying from the perimeter severely hampered his offensive value and dragged down his overall score. He managed to stay engaged defensively, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots effectively. However, the inability to punish defensive drop coverage with his jumper negated his strong hustle.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 30.6m -14.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Dylan Harper 24.8m
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite maintaining his streak of efficient shooting, defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness dragged his impact score down. He found success attacking closeouts, but gave up too much ground on the perimeter when defending the ball. The scoring punch was ultimately overshadowed by the easy looks conceded on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 24.8m -12.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Opportunistic slashing and efficient finishing around the basket drove a solid positive impact in limited action. He picked his spots well, avoiding the forced attempts that can sometimes plague his game. Adequate effort on the glass helped solidify a productive, low-mistake outing.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 23.5m -11.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

A quick burst of highly efficient perimeter shooting provided a massive lift for the second unit. He maximized his short stint by pushing the pace and making decisive reads in transition. Pesky on-ball pressure contributed to a surprisingly robust positive rating in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 11.1m -5.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A brief, low-impact stint where he provided basic rim deterrence but offered nothing on the offensive end. He occupied space in the paint effectively enough to avoid being a major liability. Lack of mobility and zero offensive gravity kept his overall rating slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 7.2m -3.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 37.2m
31
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

A massive volume of missed perimeter shots slightly deflated what was otherwise a dominant physical performance. He anchored the paint effectively, leveraging his size to deter drives and secure crucial defensive stops. The aggressive offensive approach broke a recent shooting rut, even if the shot selection from deep was highly questionable.

Shooting
FG 12/27 (44.4%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 37.2m -18.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 35.4m
24
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.2

Elite shot selection and highly efficient conversion rates drove a massive positive impact. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, he capitalized on defensive mismatches to generate clean looks at the rim. Active hands and timely rotations fueled a robust defensive rating that cemented his two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 35.4m -17.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 28.4m
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite connecting well from beyond the arc, his overall impact suffered due to an inability to generate consistent rim pressure and likely defensive lapses. Strong hustle numbers suggest good energy, but it wasn't enough to overcome empty possessions when orchestrating the half-court offense. The perimeter shot-making masked deeper struggles with penetration and playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 28.4m -13.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 26.3m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

A sharp drop in offensive aggression limited his overall value, snapping a streak of highly efficient outings. While his hustle metrics reflect strong effort on loose balls and transition defense, the lack of scoring punch left a void in the secondary rotation. Passive shot selection and an inability to pressure the rim ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 26.3m -12.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 20.9m
0
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his overall value as he failed to connect on any of his perimeter attempts. He managed to salvage some utility through solid rim protection and rebounding positioning, preventing the negative score from cratering further. The stark regression from his recent efficient finishing highlighted a passive, out-of-sync stint.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 20.9m -10.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.7

A severe lack of scoring efficiency and poor shot selection heavily penalized his net rating. He struggled to find gaps in the defense, resulting in forced interior attempts and a significant drop-off from his usual production. While his defensive positioning remained adequate, the empty offensive trips and lack of spacing proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 34.2m -16.7
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Lethal perimeter marksmanship completely transformed the offensive spacing and drove a massive positive rating. He exploited defensive closeouts perfectly, finding the bottom of the net on nearly all of his outside looks to break out of a severe slump. Timely rotations on the other end ensured his scoring surge translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 27.6m -13.5
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 20.5m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.3

Efficient finishing on limited touches provided a minor spark, but defensive vulnerabilities kept his overall impact negative. He moved the ball well to facilitate teammates, though his inability to contain dribble penetration gave points right back. A massive step up from recent struggles, yet still a net negative due to poor point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 20.5m -9.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

A disastrous stint characterized by forced shots and complete offensive futility. His inability to connect on any attempts quickly derailed offensive momentum, forcing an early hook from the rotation. The heavily negative impact was driven entirely by wasted possessions and poor shot selection in traffic.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -59.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total -4.3
Avg player in 9.5m -4.7
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1