GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
30
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.4

Relentless downhill pressure forced the defense into constant rotation and generated a parade to the free-throw line. His methodical isolation scoring dictated the game's tempo, anchoring a highly efficient offensive attack.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 13/13 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 30.0m -17.3
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Wiggins 26.5m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Poured in points at an efficient clip, but gave back the gains through poor defensive rotations and late closeouts. His inability to stay connected to shooters off the ball allowed the opposition to match his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 26.5m -15.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 26.1m
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Suffocating point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's primary actions. Paired this lockdown perimeter coverage with flawless spot-up execution to deliver a masterclass in role-player efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +9.6
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.0
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
14
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.4

Completely dominated the interior through elite rim-running and surgical high-post passing. His ability to anchor the drop coverage while simultaneously orchestrating from the elbow drove a massively profitable two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 25.8m -14.8
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylin Williams 22.9m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.5

An absolute menace in the margins, generating massive value through drawn charges and relentless loose-ball recoveries. Spacing the floor as a trail big opened up driving lanes, compounding his elite defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +8.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 22.9m -13.2
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.0

Playmaking vision was overshadowed by an inability to break down his primary defender, leading to stagnant, late-clock heaves. The lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to play the passing lanes, resulting in a highly negative offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 30.2m -17.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 27.0m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-volume perimeter chucking yielded mixed results, as streaky execution stalled out several halfcourt sets. While his shooting gravity bent the defense, the sheer number of empty possessions capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 27.0m -15.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Found soft spots in the defense for easy finishes, but struggled to anchor the glass or protect the paint on the other end. The scoring burst was a pleasant surprise, yet defensive bleeding kept his overall impact hovering near neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +47.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 19.7m -11.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 12.2m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Delivered a textbook two-way spark by blowing up dribble hand-offs and converting transition opportunities. His disruptive hands and timely cuts optimized a highly effective, albeit brief, rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +49.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 12.2m -6.9
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalized on garbage-time spacing by decisively stepping into his perimeter looks. Avoided defensive lapses, allowing his efficient shooting to translate directly into positive marginal value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 6.8m -3.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Made the most of a late-game cameo by crashing the glass and securing extra possessions. High-energy activity in low-leverage minutes yielded a tidy positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 6.8m -4.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Faded into the background during his minutes, failing to assert himself offensively or disrupt actions defensively. A passive approach kept him from making any meaningful dent in the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.0m -3.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 32.1m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a strong offensive rating, but his overall impact was dragged down to neutral. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, bleeding points on the defensive end to offset his scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 32.1m -18.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 28.1m
20
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.3

Inefficient finishing around the rim compared to his usual dominant standards capped his offensive ceiling tonight. Despite generating solid defensive events and showing high-motor activity in the paint, uncharacteristic misses in traffic pushed his net value into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/12 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 28.1m -16.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jeremiah Fears 25.6m
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.2

Hemorrhaged value through poor decision-making and live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent transition attacks. While the perimeter stroke looked fluid, his inability to orchestrate without coughing up possession completely cratered his floor impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 25.6m -14.7
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Herbert Jones 24.1m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by burying spot-up triples from the corners. His signature point-of-attack pressure disrupted opposing sets, driving a positive two-way performance that far exceeded his recent offensive baseline.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 24.1m -13.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Yves Missi 21.9m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

A low-usage offensive role kept his overall footprint minimal despite converting efficiently when targeted. His value primarily stemmed from rim-deterrence and vertical spacing, though defensive miscommunications likely prevented a larger positive swing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 21.9m -12.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Jordan Poole 24.1m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Shot selection was abysmal, repeatedly settling for heavily contested pull-ups early in the shot clock. This brick-heavy volume actively killed offensive momentum, negating any marginal gains from his off-ball defensive activity.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 24.1m -13.8
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Saddiq Bey 19.0m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

A complete offensive disappearing act where forced, contested jumpers derailed the team's halfcourt rhythm. Without his typical scoring punch to rely on, his lateral limitations on defense were glaringly exposed in space.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -54.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 19.0m -10.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Brought his trademark chaotic energy and backcourt harassment, but it wasn't enough to overcome a stagnant offensive shift. Failed to bend the defense on drives, stalling out possessions when forced to operate as the primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 18.2m -10.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevon Looney 16.5m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Struggled to anchor the second unit as a lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint. Failed to generate his usual second-chance opportunities via the offensive glass, rendering his minutes highly unprofitable on both ends.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -43.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 16.5m -9.5
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Burned brief rotation minutes with rushed attempts and poor spacing. Could not establish a rhythm within the flow of the offense, resulting in empty possessions during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 6.8m -3.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Maximized a short leash by executing perfectly as a roll man and finishing his limited looks. Provided a quick burst of rim protection that kept the bench unit stabilized.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 6.8m -4.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Completely invisible during a brief rotation stint, failing to leverage his movement shooting to create gravity. The lack of offensive involvement made it impossible to offset defensive mismatches on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 6.8m -4.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Chipped in functional garbage-time minutes by holding his ground in the post. Avoided costly mistakes, keeping the underlying metrics slightly positive during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 6.8m -4.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Kept the ball moving and avoided forcing the issue during a fleeting appearance. His quick-decision passing generated a pair of high-value looks to edge his impact into the green.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0