GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Cam Thomas 34.7m
25
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-volume isolation scoring yielded a positive return, though the sheer number of missed shots capped his overall ceiling. He consistently broke down primary defenders, forcing the defense to collapse and react to his downhill pressure. Despite the heavy usage and middling efficiency, his aggressive shot creation kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 34.7m -18.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 31.7m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

A massive defensive presence completely salvaged what was otherwise a highly inefficient shooting night. His insistence on launching from deep often bailed out the opposing defense, but his rim protection and switchability kept the overall impact neutral. He essentially traded offensive waste for defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 31.7m -16.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 29.9m
19
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.7

Flawless execution as a roll man and lob threat generated a highly efficient offensive output. He dominated the interior matchups, punishing defensive breakdowns without forcing a single bad shot. His ability to anchor the paint while serving as a reliable release valve drove a stellar positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 29.9m -15.4
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Terance Mann 27.9m
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

Inefficient chucking from the perimeter and an inability to finish through contact dragged his impact down significantly. He repeatedly stalled the offense by forcing tough, contested looks rather than keeping the ball moving. A negative defensive rating further compounded the damage from his poor shooting night.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 27.9m -14.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyrese Martin 22.1m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

A sudden spike in usage resulted in a mixed bag, as inefficient finishing inside the arc offset his decent perimeter stroke. He showed flashes of energy on the hustle charts, but too many empty possessions dragged his net rating slightly negative. The increased offensive load ultimately exposed some limitations in his shot creation.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 22.1m -11.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Timely perimeter shooting and disciplined shot selection allowed him to post a modest positive impact. He spaced the floor effectively, punishing closeouts without demanding heavy on-ball reps. A quiet but steady two-way performance provided reliable connective tissue for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 22.6m -11.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Egor Dëmin 21.3m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

Excellent defensive activity wasn't quite enough to mask a disjointed, highly ineffective offensive stint. He struggled to acclimate to the game's pace, forcing poor looks and failing to bend the defense as a playmaker. The stark contrast between his defensive awareness and offensive struggles defined his night.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 21.3m -11.1
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Absolute dominance in the dirty work categories drove a highly efficient, low-maintenance shift. He controlled the glass and deterred drivers without needing a single play called for him. It was a textbook example of a backup big maximizing his minutes through pure physicality.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 19.8m -10.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Jalen Wilson 15.9m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

A complete lack of rhythm on both ends of the floor resulted in a heavily negative rating. He was a step slow on defensive rotations and settled for low-quality jumpers when the offense stalled. Failing to leverage his physicality left him floating on the perimeter with nothing to show for it.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 15.9m -8.3
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 3.5m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brief, scoreless cameo failed to move the needle as he struggled to get involved in the flow of the game. He was largely invisible during his short stint, unable to generate any meaningful advantages. The lack of aggression kept his impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Rushed decision-making during a very short appearance led to empty possessions and a negative rating. He couldn't find the range on his lone perimeter attempt and failed to set up his teammates. A highly forgettable stint defined by offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Forced a couple of bad looks in garbage time, instantly dragging his impact score into the red. He failed to secure position inside, settling for contested shots that went nowhere. The brief run highlighted a lack of offensive polish in tight spaces.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Saraf 3.5m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

A quick trigger from beyond the arc allowed him to sneak into positive territory despite limited playing time. He maximized his brief opportunity by confidently stepping into a perimeter look. It was a short but sweet injection of spacing at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 33.7m
15
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite flawless execution around the rim, his overall impact slipped slightly into the red due to a muted defensive footprint by his standards. Opponents likely neutralized his drop coverage, preventing him from dominating the paint as usual. Flawless lob-catching simply wasn't enough to overcome the defensive compromises.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 33.7m -17.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Julius Randle 33.5m
19
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+4.0

Playmaking from the frontcourt was the primary engine for his positive rating, overcoming a cold night from beyond the arc. He leveraged his gravity to create for others while maintaining a heavy, physical presence on the defensive glass. His willingness to pivot into a facilitator role when his jumper wasn't falling salvaged his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 33.5m -17.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
25
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.6

Relentless perimeter volume finally paid off as he snapped out of a recent shooting slump to stretch the floor dynamically. His willingness to let it fly from deep forced defenders to extend, opening up driving lanes for the rest of the roster. The sheer mathematical advantage of his three-point barrage heavily outweighed a few wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.0
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 30.4m -15.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 29.4m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Elite shot selection and hyper-efficient finishing drove a massive positive impact. He seamlessly continued his recent offensive tear while providing a sturdy defensive anchor on the wing. The combination of low-usage scoring and high-level defensive activity made him the ultimate two-way connector tonight.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 29.4m -15.2
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mike Conley 24.0m
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.0

A low-usage offensive profile limited his ability to move the needle, even though he managed the game well as a distributor. He struggled to generate enough individual scoring gravity to keep the defense honest, causing his overall rating to dip. Efficient but overly passive play ultimately capped his ceiling in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 24.0m -12.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 24.1m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.3

Instant offense off the bench completely tilted the game's momentum, driven by blistering perimeter efficiency. He punished slower bigs by popping out to the arc, blending high-end shot-making with highly disruptive defensive rotations. This was a masterclass in maximizing per-minute impact through aggressive, confident spacing.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 24.1m -12.5
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 20.3m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Offensive invisibility severely hampered his floor time, as he failed to capitalize on his limited touches. Without the ball in his hands, his lack of spacing allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. A decent effort on the hustle charts couldn't salvage a largely hollow performance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 20.3m -10.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor shot selection and an inability to find a rhythm offensively tanked his overall rating. He failed to bend the defense, resulting in empty possessions that allowed the opponent to capitalize in transition. While he showed flashes of defensive hustle, the offensive stagnation was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 20.0m -10.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game during his brief stint, looking hesitant to attack his matchups. The lack of downhill aggression meant he wasn't drawing fouls or creating advantages. His minutes were largely a placeholder, yielding a negative return due to sheer passivity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 13.4m -6.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A brief, erratic stint yielded zero offensive production as he forced contested looks from the perimeter. He managed to stay afloat purely through surprisingly active defensive rotations that prevented easy blow-bys. Ultimately, the lack of scoring punch in a microwave role neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 5.2m -2.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Garbage time minutes resulted in a slight negative impact due to an inability to secure the ball or convert his lone opportunity. He was largely a bystander during his brief appearance. The lack of physical engagement on either end kept his rating in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 3.0m -1.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Managed to break even during a very short run by converting a quick opportunity around the basket. He didn't have enough time to establish a rhythm or make a sustained defensive impact. A purely neutral stint that neither helped nor hurt the overall game plan.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0