GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 35.1m
16
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
-4.9

Elite playmaking volume was severely undermined by a complete inability to stretch the floor, as defenders sagged off him to clog the passing lanes. His massive struggles from deep allowed the opposition to pack the paint, neutralizing the value of his high-level facilitation. Furthermore, negative defensive metrics suggest he struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 35.1m -21.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 33.0m
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite strong perimeter shot-making, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive miscommunications and an inability to pressure the rim. He settled heavily for outside jumpers, which limited his free-throw generation and allowed the defense to set up in transition. A lack of playmaking diversity meant his scoring punch didn't adequately elevate the surrounding lineups.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 33.0m -19.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

An otherworldly defensive performance (+14.1) was entirely offset by a disastrous perimeter shooting night that killed the offensive flow. He settled for heavily contested above-the-break threes instead of leveraging his massive size in the paint, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. While he completely locked down the rim, his steep scoring drop and poor shot selection kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +14.1
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 32.5m -19.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
S De'Aaron Fox 30.5m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Relentless downhill attacking broke the opposing shell and drove a highly positive net impact. He dictated the pace beautifully, using his elite speed to generate high-percentage looks in the paint and punish retreating bigs. This aggressive rim pressure not only spiked his scoring but also created a cascading effect that opened up the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 30.5m -18.2
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 27.9m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Hyper-efficient spot-up shooting wasn't quite enough to overcome the hidden costs of poor rotational defense. He capitalized brilliantly on drive-and-kick sequences to more than double his recent scoring average, but his struggles to contain quicker wings on the perimeter bled points on the other end. The scoring surge masked a tendency to get caught ball-watching during critical weak-side closeouts.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 27.9m -16.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack erased the value of his highly efficient offensive output. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts and struggled to fight through off-ball screens, bleeding points that negated his perimeter shot-making. While he spaced the floor well, his inability to string together stops kept his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 25.6m -15.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Surgical efficiency and versatile defensive switching anchored a highly effective rotational stint. He thrived as a short-roll connector, making quick decisions that kept the offense humming without demanding high usage. His ability to seamlessly toggle between guarding wings and bigs disrupted the opponent's primary screening actions.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 20.0m -12.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.9

Bully-ball drives and exceptional defensive rebounding fueled a massive positive impact off the bench. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, drawing defensive attention and kicking out to open shooters. His physicality set the tone for the second unit, completely overwhelming the opponent's smaller wing rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 19.5m -11.8
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Marginal offensive usage and a lack of hustle plays resulted in a slightly negative overall rating. He operated strictly as a floor spacer but rarely found daylight against tight perimeter coverage. Without the ability to put the ball on the deck and create, his offensive impact was easily neutralized by disciplined closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +90.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 10.4m -6.3
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
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, invisible stint left a negative footprint due to a complete lack of offensive involvement. He failed to command any attention from the defense, allowing his man to aggressively double the primary ball handlers. Without any scoring gravity or secondary playmaking, his minutes essentially forced the team to play four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -59.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 5.5m -3.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.1m
41
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.1

An absolute offensive explosion drove a massive +25.1 impact, fueled by elite shot-making that yielded a +183% scoring surge over his recent average. His hyper-efficient perimeter isolation game completely broke the defense, generating high-value looks without sacrificing defensive integrity (+5.2). The sheer volume of converted contested jumpers masked any minor rotational lapses.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +38.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +48.1
Avg player in 38.1m -23.0
Impact +25.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 38.0m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Elite defensive disruption (+6.8) and a surprising scoring punch kept his baseline high, but hidden costs ultimately pushed his net impact slightly into the red. His aggressive perimeter ball pressure generated deflections, yet over-helping on drives compromised the weak-side rotation. Despite nearly doubling his recent scoring average, a few ill-timed fouls negated his two-way contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 38.0m -22.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jeremiah Fears 31.4m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Relentless energy defined this performance, as a staggering +11.1 hustle score offset a mediocre perimeter shooting night. He constantly generated extra possessions through offensive rebounding and loose-ball recoveries, punishing the defense with secondary actions. His downhill rim pressure consistently collapsed the paint, making up for the lack of three-point spacing.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +11.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 31.4m -18.9
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 29.9m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.5

Clunky offensive execution dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid defensive metrics. He struggled to find a rhythm against physical closeouts, resulting in a severe scoring drop from his recent baseline and multiple empty possessions. A lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed jumpers directly fueled the opponent's transition game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 29.9m -18.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevon Looney 16.9m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Quietly effective on the margins with positive hustle and defensive scores, but a lack of offensive gravity limited his overall value. He anchored the paint well during his brief stint, yet his inability to punish switches allowed the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes. The negative impact largely stems from offensive stagnation while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 16.9m -10.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Derik Queen 24.6m
13
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poor shot selection at the rim severely undercut his value, as a high volume of forced interior looks resulted in empty trips. Although he generated solid hustle metrics and facilitated well from the elbows, the inefficiency of his self-created offense dragged down the unit's overall rating. The defense consistently dared him to shoot, and his inability to convert those looks stalled the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 24.6m -14.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

A steep drop in scoring efficiency and complete lack of peripheral stats resulted in a heavily negative impact score. He failed to separate from top-locking defenders, neutralizing his off-ball gravity and forcing him into contested, late-clock jumpers. Without his typical shooting rhythm, his presence on the floor actively bottlenecked the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -55.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 18.0m -10.8
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 17.6m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

An absolute zero in the scoring column derailed his net impact, as he failed to capitalize on multiple open spot-up opportunities. While he brought decent energy to the glass, his offensive invisibility allowed his primary defender to roam and double-team the ball handlers. The inability to punish closeouts made him a severe liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 17.6m -10.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Offensive efficiency and timely playmaking drove a positive net score, completely overshadowing a rare negative defensive metric. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with perfect perimeter shooting, punishing drop coverages and maximizing his limited touches. His ability to organize the second unit's spacing proved crucial during a pivotal second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 16.6m -10.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A low-usage stint resulted in a slightly negative impact, largely due to an inability to establish deep post position. While he maintained his streak of highly efficient shooting, his overall volume plummeted as he struggled to navigate physical pick-and-roll coverages. He provided adequate rim deterrence, but simply didn't tilt the floor enough offensively to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 8.8m -5.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1