GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 35.5m
27
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.8

Bullied his way to the cup with relentless downhill pressure, forcing the defense into constant rotation. However, his tendency to ball-watch off the ball mitigated some of the massive offensive value he generated.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 35.5m -18.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 33.0m
26
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Systematically dismantled single coverage from the elbows, using his high release to render contests irrelevant. His methodical shot creation stabilized the halfcourt offense, though occasional defensive lapses in transition kept his overall impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 33.0m -16.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Scottie Barnes 32.3m
19
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+14.1

Wreaked absolute havoc as a free safety, blowing up passing lanes and erasing attempts at the rim to drive an elite defensive rating. Even with a streaky shooting night, his sheer physical dominance on the glass dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 32.3m -16.3
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.2

Struggled to navigate ball screens defensively, frequently dying on picks and exposing the backline. His low-volume offensive output couldn't compensate for the structural breakdowns he caused on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.9
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 31.8m -16.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.5

Completely neutralized the interior with textbook verticality and switchability onto smaller guards. His relentless motor generated numerous second-chance opportunities, cementing his status as the most impactful two-way presence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +6.5
Defense +10.8
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 31.1m -15.8
Impact +15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Gradey Dick 19.9m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Showed flashes of gravity by relocating well along the perimeter, pulling defenders out of the paint. A few rushed closeouts on defense and minor rotational delays ultimately dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 19.9m -10.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 16.2m
9
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Injected immediate pace into the second unit, orchestrating the offense with crisp, on-time deliveries. His ability to hit the open man perfectly in stride punished defensive scrambles and elevated his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 16.2m -8.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 16.0m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Provided solid energy in transition but failed to make a dent in the halfcourt. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down Toronto's spacing and tanked his offensive utility.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 16.0m -8.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, biting on multiple pump fakes that compromised the defensive shell. Firing blanks on his few offensive touches only compounded a rough rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 11.4m -5.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Played a largely connective role, executing dribble hand-offs without looking at the rim. His reluctance to challenge the defense allowed his primary defender to roam freely and disrupt adjacent actions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 10.6m -5.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Barely broke a sweat during a brief garbage-time cameo. Got caught out of position on one defensive rotation before the final horn sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +70.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
20
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Anchored the interior with timely weak-side rotations that stifled opponent rim attempts. His efficiency inside the arc kept the offense afloat, though a few late-clock forced jumpers marginally capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 32.5m -16.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Impact cratered due to a barrage of contested midrange pull-ups that bailed out the defense. While his relentless off-ball chasing generated high hustle metrics, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 27.4m -13.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cam Spencer 26.4m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.3

Provided excellent point-of-attack resistance on the perimeter, navigating screens beautifully to disrupt opposing flow. However, his total inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off, severely clogging the halfcourt offense.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 26.4m -13.4
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 26.2m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Offensive rhythm completely stalled out due to heavily contested drives into traffic that resulted in wasted possessions. The lack of defensive playmaking couldn't offset the damage done by his poor shot profile.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 26.2m -13.3
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 22.8m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalized perfectly on pick-and-pop opportunities to stretch the floor and punish drop coverage. His disciplined verticality in the paint and flawless shot selection resulted in a highly efficient, high-impact stint.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 22.8m -11.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and in passing lanes fueled a massive hustle score. He consistently made the right extra pass against rotating defenses, keeping the offensive machinery humming smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 29.3m -14.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 28.4m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Settled far too often for contested above-the-break looks rather than attacking closeouts. While his weak-side rim protection offered some value, the volume of wasted offensive trips kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 28.4m -14.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Delivered a masterclass in two-way efficiency by locking down his primary assignment and punishing over-helps with timely cuts. His selective, high-quality shot profile ensured almost zero wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 21.1m -10.8
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Maximized a short leash by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. His decisive, straight-line drives against shifting defenses created immediate advantages.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 11.8m -6.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Floated through his brief rotation without leaving any tangible imprint on the offensive end. Allowed opposing guards to turn the corner too easily, resulting in a negative defensive ripple effect.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 7.9m -4.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Operated strictly as a passive floor-spacer, refusing to challenge closeouts or initiate sets. The lack of aggression rendered Memphis effectively four-on-five during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.2m -3.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0