GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Cam Thomas 34.7m
29
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Explosive shot-making from the perimeter masked a performance that was surprisingly neutral in its overall impact. His tendency to monopolize the ball stalled secondary actions, and defensive lapses on the perimeter allowed opponents to immediately answer his scoring bursts. Ultimately, his high-volume scoring was a zero-sum game due to his defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.7%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 34.7m -20.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 34.2m
19
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

Suffocating rim protection and elite pick-and-roll defense anchored a stellar two-way showing. He consistently deterred drivers from entering the paint, altering the geometry of the opponent's half-court offense. On the other end, clinical finishing on lob threats maximized his offensive efficiency and boosted his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +11.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 34.2m -20.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Terance Mann 33.6m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.1

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and relentless energy completely transformed his team's transition attack. He broke out of a recent slump by aggressively cutting to the basket and converting high-percentage looks at the rim. His ability to generate second-chance opportunities through sheer willpower defined this dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +13.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +38.3
Avg player in 33.6m -20.2
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

A catastrophic shooting night from the perimeter absolutely torpedoed his overall impact score. He repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, derailing the offensive flow and feeding the opponent's transition game. While his defensive rebounding provided some resistance, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 7/23 (30.4%)
3PT 1/12 (8.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.6%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 31.4m -18.9
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tyrese Martin 27.4m
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.9

An absolute offensive void, his inability to convert wide-open perimeter looks severely handicapped the team's spacing. Defenders completely ignored him on the weak side, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle primary actions. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't salvage a performance defined by crippling offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -7.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 27.4m -16.4
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Active hands in the passing lanes and disciplined weak-side rotations fueled a highly positive defensive rating. He capitalized on the resulting turnovers by leaking out early in transition for easy finishes. This seamless blend of disruptive defense and opportunistic scoring cemented a very solid rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 20.4m -12.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Egor Dëmin 15.4m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite flashing some defensive potential with timely closeouts, his overall impact slipped into the red due to sloppy execution. He struggled to navigate screens effectively, occasionally surrendering driving lanes that compromised the defensive shell. A few hesitant decisions with the ball in his hands further muted his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 15.4m -9.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Clowney 15.1m
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

A complete lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a heavily negative net rating during his time on the floor. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, allowing opponents to dictate the terms of engagement. This passive approach rendered him a liability, as he offered neither rim pressure nor spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 15.1m -9.1
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 13.7m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Forced shots and poor spacing decisions completely derailed his effectiveness during this rotation cycle. He repeatedly drove into traffic without a clear exit strategy, resulting in empty possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks. This erratic offensive approach, combined with lackluster defensive resistance, resulted in a plummeting impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -80.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 13.7m -8.2
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Clunky offensive execution and an inability to finish around the rim dragged his overall metrics into negative territory. He struggled to secure deep post position, often getting pushed off his spots by more physical defenders. While his interior defense remained passable, the offensive stagnation was too costly to ignore.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 9.7m -5.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Made the most of a very brief window by executing his assignments flawlessly on both ends of the floor. He stayed disciplined within the defensive scheme and capitalized on his lone offensive opportunity. It was a stabilizing, mistake-free stint that provided a marginal but positive boost.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 4.5m -2.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 38.8m
26
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.5

Elite shot creation and high-quality perimeter looks drove a massive offensive rating. He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defender, forcing defensive rotations that opened up the floor. While his defensive metrics were merely average, his dynamic scoring gravity dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 38.8m -23.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 33.3m
29
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless rim pressure and aggressive slashing fueled a massive spike in his offensive rating compared to recent outings. His defensive activity on the wing provided a strong secondary boost to his overall value. The only slight drag on his impact was a tendency to settle for contested looks from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 33.3m -20.0
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 32.9m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-level hustle metrics and active perimeter defense kept his baseline impact firmly in the positive. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort, though a handful of forced perimeter jumpers slightly muted his overall efficiency. His ability to disrupt passing lanes remains a defining trait of his steady two-way play.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +7.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 32.9m -19.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jabari Walker 18.1m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Offensive stagnation completely derailed his overall impact metric during this stint. He failed to capitalize on his perimeter touches, continuing a pattern of hesitant shot selection that bogged down the second unit. A lack of defensive disruption meant he couldn't offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 18.1m -10.9
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Adem Bona 14.3m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite bringing decent energy on the glass, his overall effectiveness dipped due to a severe lack of offensive involvement. He struggled to establish deep post position, rendering him a non-factor in half-court sets. This inability to command defensive attention ultimately dragged down his net rating during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 14.3m -8.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
22
pts
6
reb
13
ast
Impact
+11.5

Superb decision-making in the pick-and-roll resulted in an offensive masterclass that shattered his recent production averages. He paired this offensive leap with suffocating on-ball defense, completely neutralizing his primary matchup. This two-way dominance resulted in one of the highest net impact scores on the roster.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +49.0
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +7.8
Defense +7.9
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 31.7m -19.1
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
16
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.3

Exceptional shot selection and clinical finishing around the basket propelled his impact score to elite levels. He thrived as a release valve against defensive pressure, consistently making the right read in the short roll. That offensive efficiency completely overshadowed a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +6.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 25.5m -15.4
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A stark contrast emerged between his solid interior rim protection and his overall negative net impact. Opponents consistently exploited his lack of mobility in transition, bleeding points before the half-court defense could set. Consequently, his inability to stretch the floor or finish dynamically negated his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 23.2m -14.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Errant shot selection and an inability to finish through contact severely limited his offensive value during a brief rotation stint. Fortunately, active hands and disciplined closeouts on the perimeter salvaged his defensive rating. He ultimately served as a defensive specialist whose offensive struggles prevented a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.2m -6.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Instant offense in a micro-stint highlighted his ability to exploit mismatches in the paint. He aggressively hunted his own shot, generating high-quality looks near the rim despite limited floor time. This quick burst of scoring efficiency drove a disproportionately high positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 4.7m -2.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Invisible in the hustle metrics, his brief appearance was marred by an inability to influence the game's tempo. He operated primarily as a bystander on offense, failing to create separation or initiate sets. This passive approach during garbage-time minutes resulted in a slightly negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 4.1m -2.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Lowry 3.2m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Veteran savvy was on full display during a highly efficient cameo appearance. He maximized his limited run by immediately capitalizing on a perimeter breakdown and directing traffic defensively. It was a textbook example of a low-usage, high-efficiency micro-stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0