GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 36.6m
33
pts
15
reb
16
ast
Impact
+32.2

Absolute mastery of offensive geometry tore the opponent's defensive scheme to shreds. By manipulating help defenders with his eyes, he generated a relentless stream of wide-open layups for cutters. His elite defensive rebounding instantly ignited lethal transition sequences, culminating in a historically dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 24.8%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +36.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +11.7
Raw total +53.1
Avg player in 36.6m -20.9
Impact +32.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Christian Braun 35.3m
11
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.6

Bricklaying from the perimeter severely capped his offensive ceiling, allowing defenders to aggressively cheat off him. He managed to stay in the green by acting as a connective playmaker and crashing the glass with relentless energy. High-level lateral quickness on defense prevented his shooting woes from becoming a fatal liability.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 35.3m -20.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 33.6m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive rhythm. Forcing contested pull-ups early in the shot clock resulted in long rebounds that fueled opponent run-outs. Despite notable effort navigating screens on defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions tanked his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 33.6m -19.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Aaron Gordon 30.8m
24
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Bully-ball tactics in the dunker spot generated high-percentage looks and wore down the opposing frontcourt. However, settling for above-the-break threes suppressed what could have been a dominant statistical impact. His physical screen-setting remained a crucial, unheralded engine for the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 30.8m -17.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 23.0m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

An inability to convert against physical closeouts severely limited his offensive gravity. Missing multiple contested mid-range looks short-circuited possessions and allowed the defense to pack the paint. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his value plummeted when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 23.0m -13.1
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 27.6m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Hesitancy attacking the paint shattered his recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing. By passing up driving lanes and settling for late-clock grenades, he stalled the second unit's momentum. Even his trademark chaotic energy in the passing lanes couldn't rescue a deeply flawed offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 27.6m -15.7
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Operating exclusively as a catch-and-shoot specialist, his one-dimensional approach left the team vulnerable elsewhere. A complete lack of defensive resistance and zero playmaking equity meant his scoring outbursts were essentially traded for opponent buckets. The inability to generate any hustle stats underscored a purely transactional performance.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 24.4m -13.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, as he failed to convert any looks from the floor. While he terrorized the defensive glass and provided excellent weak-side rim protection, playing four-on-five offensively bogged down the unit. His inability to punish mismatches ultimately dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 17.7m -10.1
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Getting continually pushed off his spots in the post resulted in a string of heavily contested, low-efficiency hooks. The lack of interior touch wasted valuable post-up possessions during his brief rotation. He secured the defensive glass adequately but offered zero rim deterrence against driving guards.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.9m -6.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 31.7m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite shot selection fueled a massive positive impact, as he consistently punished closeouts and found his spots within the flow of the offense. A sharp uptick in scoring aggression caught the defense flat-footed all night. Active perimeter rotations and strong hustle metrics further amplified his two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 31.7m -18.1
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 31.3m
10
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.6

Despite orchestrating the offense effectively in the half-court, his overall impact was dragged into the red by a barrage of live-ball turnovers. Opponents relentlessly capitalized on his careless passing in traffic, igniting fast breaks that erased the value of his playmaking. Costly transition breakdowns ultimately overshadowed a highly efficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 31.3m -17.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Norman Powell 30.5m
23
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Tunnel vision and forced drives into traffic cratered his efficiency inside the arc. While his perimeter stroke remained a weapon, the sheer volume of empty possessions generated by his isolation-heavy approach hurt the team's overall offensive rating. He operated strictly as a finisher, failing to create looks for others when the defense collapsed.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 30.5m -17.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 23.5m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

Perimeter hesitation completely neutralized his recent offensive momentum, snapping a five-game streak of highly efficient finishing. Blanking from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off, stagnating Miami's half-court flow. His minimal defensive contributions couldn't salvage a deeply negative overall impact driven by empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 23.5m -13.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 8.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

An abbreviated stint severely limited his ability to establish any interior rhythm. Forcing contested looks early led to empty possessions that dragged down his overall rating. The lack of his usual defensive anchoring left a noticeable void during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 8.2m -4.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 27.2m
13
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.7

Total domination of the painted area defined this breakout performance. Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass completely erased second-chance opportunities for the opposition. Stretching the floor with timely perimeter makes forced opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +11.0
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 27.2m -15.4
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Relentless rim pressure and elite footwork in the paint drove a highly efficient scoring night. By abandoning the struggling perimeter jumper to attack the basket, he stabilized the second-unit offense. His timely weak-side defensive rotations added crucial hidden value.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 26.4m -15.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.7

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers resulted in a string of empty possessions that killed momentum. His inability to puncture the defense off the dribble made him a liability in half-court sets. The resulting long rebounds frequently ignited opponent fast breaks, compounding his deeply negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 19.6m -11.2
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Dru Smith 16.7m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Suffocating point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation. Even with a broken jumper, his relentless ball pressure and ability to blow up dribble hand-offs generated immense hidden value. He proved that high-IQ defensive positioning can salvage an otherwise poor shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +8.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 16.7m -9.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Forcing off-balance floaters in traffic ruined his offensive efficiency during a brief rotation stint. While he provided adequate resistance on the defensive end, the sheer number of clanked interior looks stalled out the offense. He struggled to find any rhythm when chased off the three-point line.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his short stint on the floor. Rushing his perimeter looks led to quick, empty possessions that put the defense at a transition disadvantage. A few bright spots in weak-side rim protection weren't enough to offset the offensive crater.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 9.3m -5.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1