GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 31.7m
32
pts
14
reb
14
ast
Impact
+20.0

Systematically dismantled double-teams from the elbows, generating flawless offensive possessions through sheer processing speed. His surgical shot selection and dominant defensive rebounding completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +27.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +36.7
Avg player in 31.7m -16.7
Impact +20.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
S Cameron Johnson 27.2m
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Compensated for a frigid night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking closeouts and making the extra pass. His high-IQ defensive rotations and willingness to put his body on the line for loose balls cemented a solid two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Peyton Watson 27.2m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.7

Terrorized the opponent's wing scorers with his length, consistently blowing up isolation attempts and turning defense into instant transition offense. Attacking the basket with authority rather than settling for jumpers maximized his impact on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 27.0m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities bogged down the half-court offense and allowed the defense to pack the paint. While his on-ball defensive pressure remained a bright spot, his offensive timidity resulted in a surprisingly steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 27.0m -14.2
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Pickett 17.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Pounded the air out of the ball against switching defenses, routinely stalling possessions into late-clock desperation heaves. A complete lack of off-ball activity and zero hustle plays compounded a highly detrimental stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 17.5m -9.2
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 23.8m
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Over-penetration into crowded paint areas resulted in costly live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's transition attack. He brought his trademark chaotic energy and defensive grit, but erratic decision-making with the ball ultimately sank his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +48.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 23.8m -12.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Caught fire from the perimeter during a pivotal second-quarter stretch, punishing defenders who went under screens. However, his tendency to ball-watch defensively and leak out early on rebounds gave back almost every point he generated.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +50.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 23.6m -12.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Found success attacking closeouts with decisive straight-line drives, breaking out of a recent scoring slump. Unfortunately, his habit of dying on screens defensively forced the frontcourt into impossible rotation situations, negating his offensive breakout.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 21.6m -11.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Thrived by keeping things simple, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to hit timely spot-up jumpers. His disciplined weak-side rotations and willingness to make the extra rotation papered over any offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 19.9m -10.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Bullied smaller defenders in the post to command double teams, creating excellent weak-side spacing. His drop coverage was surprisingly effective at deterring rim attempts, making his short rotation stint highly productive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +44.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 13.9m -7.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 3.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Looked completely out of sync during a brief cameo, blowing a key defensive switch that led to an open corner three. His inability to establish rebounding position quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Rushed a pair of contested perimeter looks in an attempt to make an immediate impact. Zero hustle events and poor shot selection defined a highly forgettable three-minute stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.2m -1.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.1m
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.9

Forced isolation possessions against loaded strong-side coverages resulted in a barrage of clanked mid-range jumpers. While his weak-side defensive rotations remained sharp, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 33.1m -17.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 33.0m
22
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

Chasing scoring volume led to a disastrous shot profile, repeatedly bailing out the defense with early-clock, contested pull-ups. The heavy diet of bricked perimeter looks fueled transition opportunities going the other way, neutralizing his otherwise solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 33.0m -17.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 26.2m
25
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.7

Flawless shot selection and decisive off-ball cutting dismantled the opponent's perimeter defense. Coupled with suffocating point-of-attack pressure that blew up multiple hand-off actions, this was a masterclass in two-way wing play.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 26.2m -13.8
Impact +19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarace Walker 21.8m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

A sudden deviation from his recent efficient stretch tanked his overall value, driven by settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. His inability to navigate screens on the defensive end allowed open driving lanes, completely erasing his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.8m -11.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Jackson 18.5m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite rim deterrence and relentless activity in the passing lanes drove a massive positive impact despite a completely broken finishing touch around the basket. He abandoned his recent offensive efficiency but compensated entirely by anchoring the interior defense during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +10.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 18.5m -9.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 22.8m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.0

Completely lost his rhythm against aggressive top-locking defenders, forcing up out-of-balance looks late in the shot clock. The resulting long misses sparked opponent fast breaks, creating a severe negative swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -50.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 22.8m -12.0
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Lackadaisical closeouts and an inability to secure contested long rebounds allowed opponents to extend possessions. Even with a few timely cuts to the rim, his overall lethargy in the hustle categories dragged down his final rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -57.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 18.8m -9.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tony Bradley 15.9m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Capitalized on deep post positioning to generate high-percentage looks around the basket. His heavy-footed pick-and-roll coverages gave up some easy floaters, yet his efficient finishing ultimately kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 15.9m -8.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 15.3m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Straying from his interior strengths to launch ill-advised trail threes nearly derailed his stint. Fortunately, his disciplined verticality at the rim and active screen-setting salvaged a positive overall rating despite the offensive drought.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 15.3m -8.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Passive decision-making against drop coverage stalled the second unit's offensive flow. He provided adequate resistance at the point of attack defensively, but failing to punish defenders for going under screens rendered him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 15.0m -7.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cody Martin 14.4m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Provided a massive spark in the dirty-work categories by blowing up dribble hand-offs and diving for loose balls. However, being completely ignored by the defense on the perimeter cramped the floor so severely that his offensive limitations outweighed his defensive grit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 14.4m -7.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Rushed his offensive reads during a brief rotation stint, resulting in forced drives into heavy traffic. His inability to bend the defense or generate any hustle events made these five minutes a distinct negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 5.1m -2.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0