GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 36.0m
34
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
+29.9

Seamlessly toggling between unstoppable interior scoring and surgical passing, he completely dismantled the opposing defensive scheme. This absolute domination of the game's tempo and geometry fueled an astronomical impact rating.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +35.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +11.2
Raw total +50.7
Avg player in 36.0m -20.8
Impact +29.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 68.2%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 32.1m
15
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.8

Forced shots and a completely broken perimeter stroke dragged down what was otherwise a solid playmaking effort. Despite digging in defensively and generating hustle events, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions tipped his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 32.1m -18.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Christian Braun 31.4m
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalizing on the gravity of his star teammates, he found soft spots in the coverage for easy finishes. This ruthless efficiency on backdoor cuts masked relatively quiet defensive metrics, keeping his net rating in the black.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 31.4m -18.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 30.2m
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Exploiting mismatches in the dunker spot allowed him to thrive inside, while timely perimeter makes surprisingly stretched the floor. His physical versatility on defense further disrupted opponent actions, cementing a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 30.2m -17.4
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 29.8m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A total inability to connect from long range severely cramped the offensive spacing, driving a steep negative impact. Even with active closeouts and solid hustle metrics, the perimeter bricklaying proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 29.8m -17.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A lack of offensive assertiveness rendered him largely invisible on that end of the floor. While he held his own in team defensive concepts, the failure to bend the defense or generate gravity resulted in a damaging overall stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 22.6m -13.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 22.4m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Getting caught on screens allowed dribble penetration that offset his offensive contributions. While he capitalized on spot-up opportunities to maintain his recent scoring efficiency, these defensive miscommunications hindered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 22.4m -12.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Missed jumpers completely derailed the second unit's rhythm, turning him into an absolute offensive black hole tonight. Strong weak-side rim protection was nowhere near enough to salvage such a disastrous scoring output.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 16.1m -9.5
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Bully-ball tactics in the paint overwhelmed backup bigs, generating incredibly efficient offense in limited minutes. His massive screening and rebounding presence instantly stabilized the second unit's frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Flashing quick-trigger confidence during a brief stint, he provided a minor scoring bump. However, struggling to stay connected to his man on the perimeter caused defensive bleeding that outpaced his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 7.2m -4.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
26
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

An unexpected surge in perimeter shooting efficiency completely altered how the defense had to guard him, opening up driving lanes. Aggressive point-of-attack defense perfectly complemented this scoring outburst, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 37.5m -21.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Zach LaVine 36.9m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.3

Forced perimeter shots repeatedly stalled out possessions, severely punishing his overall offensive impact. Defensive lapses further exacerbated the negative rating, neutralizing any marginal value he provided in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 36.9m -21.3
Impact -17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
17
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

By consistently winning physical battles inside, he generated crucial extra possessions that sustained momentum. This relentless work on the glass and high-level defensive positioning firmly anchored his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 36.9m -21.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 17
Opp FG% 60.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 35.6m
19
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Because he lacked playmaking creation, the defense was able to easily load up on his midrange isolations. Even with solid defensive metrics, this heavy reliance on contested two-point jumpers hindered the team's overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 35.6m -20.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.5

Masterful orchestration in the half-court offset a completely cold night from beyond the arc. By consistently breaking down the primary line of defense, he created high-value looks for teammates that outweighed the perimeter misses.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 34.9m -20.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 25.1m
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Scorching spot-up shooting provided a massive floor-spacing boost, yet defensive breakdowns kept his overall impact slightly underwater. Opponents successfully targeted him in isolation, completely negating the value of his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 25.1m -14.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-energy rotations and constant off-ball movement generated a strong hustle rating, though finishing struggles capped his ceiling. Errant attempts from deep prevented him from fully capitalizing on the space his motor created.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 18.6m -10.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Drew Eubanks 11.1m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Perfect execution on rim-runs and dump-offs maximized his short stint on the floor. However, defensive positioning errors in drop coverage allowed easy floaters, keeping his net rating marginally negative.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 11.1m -6.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A brief rotational cameo yielded virtually no statistical footprint. He simply filled space on the floor without altering the geometry of the game on either end.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0