GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 35.2m
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

Near-perfect shot selection and suffocating point-of-attack defense resulted in a stellar two-way performance. He ruthlessly exploited driving lanes, finishing through contact while completely shutting down his primary assignment on the perimeter. This highly efficient scoring punch paired flawlessly with his elite defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.1
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 35.2m -19.8
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Johnson 33.0m
17
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite excellent hustle numbers and solid efficiency, hidden costs like turnovers and defensive fouls kept his net impact hovering near neutral. He forced several passes into tight windows during transition, squandering potential fast-break advantages. The raw production masked a somewhat erratic decision-making process when operating as the roll man.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 33.0m -18.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

A barrage of defensive breakdowns and likely turnover costs severely punished his overall rating despite great hustle. He frequently lost his man off the ball, leading to easy backdoor cuts that negated his offensive output. The scoring volume was essentially a mirage that hid how much he bled points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 31.9m -18.0
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

Dominant rim protection and elite hustle metrics completely overshadowed a horrific shooting night. He anchored the paint masterfully, altering countless drives and securing critical loose balls to end possessions. His sheer physical presence as a drop defender dictated the terms of engagement, rendering his missed jumpers irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +9.9
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 26.4m -14.8
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, his aggressive shot-making completely shifted the offensive geometry. He confidently hunted his shot off pin-down screens, punishing defenders who dared to go under the pick. This massive leap in offensive assertiveness drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 25.5m -14.3
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Stretching the floor with surprising perimeter efficiency opened up massive driving lanes for the guards. He paired this unexpected spacing with robust interior defense, seamlessly switching onto smaller players when required. Taking only optimal shots out of the pick-and-pop maximized his value within the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 26.6m -15.0
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 19.7m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Missing every attempt from beyond the arc destroyed his primary utility as a floor spacer. Defenders aggressively closed out and forced him to put the ball on the deck, leading to stalled possessions. Even surprisingly competent weak-side defensive positioning couldn't salvage a night where his jumper completely abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.7m -11.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Disciplined defensive rotations and timely hustle plays generated a modest but clear positive impact. He stayed vertical around the rim and avoided cheap fouls, providing excellent interior stability. Capitalizing on a few high-percentage dump-off passes kept the offense humming during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 18.0m -10.1
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A passive approach to the game resulted in a nearly invisible net impact. He deferred too often to teammates rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the offensive momentum. Failing to replicate his recent efficiency, he essentially logged cardio without tilting the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 10.8m -6.1
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Flawless shooting execution in limited minutes provided a highly efficient offensive spark. He capitalized immediately on defensive miscommunications, cutting backdoor and spotting up with perfect timing. This zero-mistake stint maximized every second he spent on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +66.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 10.7m -5.9
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 1.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A fleeting appearance yielded virtually no statistical footprint. He merely occupied space during a brief transitional lineup, failing to assert himself offensively. This represented a sharp drop from his recent hyper-efficient flashes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Less than a minute of garbage time action left no room to impact the game in any capacity. He generated zero measurable stats across the board, serving purely as a warm body to close out the clock. The outing abruptly halted a streak of highly efficient scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 36.9m
22
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite robust peripheral contributions, his severe inefficiency as a primary initiator cratered his net impact. His inability to punish drop coverage allowed the defense to pack the paint against his drives, resulting in a slew of contested misses. Stalling the half-court offense with isolation-heavy sets completely offset his high-end defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 36.9m -20.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Franz Wagner 34.0m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

A heavy volume of empty possessions dragged his overall value into the red, highlighted by a barrage of clanked perimeter looks. He forced the issue offensively rather than letting the game come to him, completely failing to punish under-screens. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, erasing his modest hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 34.0m -19.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Defensive lapses and an uncharacteristic drop in offensive aggression defined a highly uneven outing. He settled for too many outside looks instead of punishing mismatches on the low block, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting. A negative defensive rating suggests he was repeatedly exploited in drop coverage against the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 30.0m -16.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 22.6m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

An inability to find his rhythm severely limited his effectiveness, resulting in a steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear. He was effectively neutralized by aggressive perimeter top-locking, which denied him the ball and limited his attempts. Without his usual gravity spacing the floor, the offensive geometry collapsed entirely during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 22.6m -12.6
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 20.4m
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and high-level hustle plays drove a strong positive impact. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, converting efficiently from deep without hijacking the possession flow. Disrupting passing lanes at the top of the key set a physical, chaotic tone that energized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 20.4m -11.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Exceptional hustle and defensive metrics were completely undone by poor finishing around the rim. He consistently generated advantages off the dribble but failed to convert those downhill drives through contact. The resulting empty trips and likely live-ball turnovers offset the value of his high-energy ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.2

Elite shot selection and blistering perimeter efficiency fueled a massive surge in overall value. He punished defensive rotations by relocating flawlessly along the arc, capitalizing on every open catch-and-shoot opportunity. This offensive explosion was perfectly complemented by disciplined weak-side tags defensively.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 25.3m -14.3
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Goga Bitadze 12.9m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Operating strictly within his role allowed him to post a slightly positive impact during a brief stint. He set bone-crushing screens and avoided forcing action, taking only what the defense conceded in the paint. This low-mistake approach provided steady, if unspectacular, stability for the interior rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 12.9m -7.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

A lack of physical engagement and minimal hustle contributions resulted in a surprisingly negative stint. He floated on the perimeter offensively, settling for contested jumpers rather than crashing the offensive glass. Without his signature weak-side rim protection altering shots, his minutes yielded no tangible advantage.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 8.9m -4.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 7.5m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Complete offensive invisibility dragged down his rating despite respectable defensive positioning. He failed to bend the defense or create meaningful advantages, essentially playing hot potato on the perimeter. Continuing a recent scoreless trend, his reluctance to attack the paint made the offense entirely predictable.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 7.5m -4.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Getting completely erased from the offensive game plan caused his impact score to plummet. He struggled to handle the physicality of his primary matchup, failing to generate any rim pressure during his rotation. This total lack of production snapped a solid stretch of efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 7.1m -4.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Poor defensive awareness and a complete absence of hustle plays undermined his brief appearance. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation sequences, bleeding points on one end while floating passively on the other. A sharp drop in his usual offensive volume left him unable to compensate for those defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 6.0m -3.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 2.2m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

A sudden burst of offensive aggression in garbage time dramatically spiked his overall rating. He attacked the paint with unexpected confidence, drawing contact and forcing the defense to collapse. This brief but highly active stint shattered his usual baseline of offensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 57.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0