GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 34.8m
26
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.1

Suffocating weak-side rim protection and highly efficient interior finishing propelled a massive overall rating. Even with the perimeter jumper failing to fall, his sheer physical dominance in the paint dictated the terms of engagement on both ends.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.4
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 34.8m -18.4
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Elite hustle metrics and constant off-ball motion entirely masked a brutal shooting performance from the floor. He manufactured value through sheer willpower, generating extra possessions and drawing fouls to compensate for his lack of touch.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 33.2m -17.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Max Christie 30.4m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Outstanding point-of-attack defense was ultimately overshadowed by erratic shot selection that stalled offensive momentum. While he exceeded his usual scoring output, the sheer volume of forced attempts yielded a net-negative result.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 30.4m -16.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 23.4m
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim snapped a streak of highly efficient performances. Fortunately, his relentless effort on the offensive glass and high-motor screen setting salvaged a marginally positive night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 23.4m -12.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 22.4m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and drained his overall impact. He provided genuine resistance on the defensive end, but the constant clanking from deep short-circuited too many halfcourt sets.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the driving lanes for everyone else. This spacing issue effectively neutralized his solid defensive contributions and resulted in a steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 25.1m -13.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 19.7m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Knowing his role and executing it flawlessly led to a highly productive stint in limited minutes. He capitalized on every lob opportunity and anchored the drop coverage effectively, ensuring zero wasted possessions while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 19.7m -10.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Forcing heavily contested looks from deep torpedoed his offensive value and dragged his overall rating into the red. Because he exclusively hunted perimeter jumpers that failed to fall, his lack of secondary playmaking became glaringly apparent.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 16.8m -8.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Surprisingly stout perimeter defense and active hands in the passing lanes drove a positive rating during a quiet offensive shift. He didn't force the issue when his jumper wasn't falling, opting instead to keep the ball moving and compete on the margins.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 16.3m -8.6
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Seamlessly fitting into the connective tissue of the lineup, he made the most of a brief rotational look. Smart cutting and disciplined defensive rotations ensured the team won his minutes without needing him to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 9.4m -5.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Disastrous shot selection during a chaotic micro-stint completely derailed the second unit's momentum. He hijacked the offense with ill-advised pull-ups, bleeding points in transition and earning a rapid trip back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -4.6
Avg player in 4.6m -2.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A quick hook limited him to just a handful of empty trips up and down the floor. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint before being subbed out for a more favorable matchup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +61.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 4.0m -2.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
30
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.8

Dominant two-way execution drove a massive positive impact, highlighted by elite rim pressure and highly efficient interior finishing. His ability to anchor the paint defensively while consistently collapsing the opponent's defensive shell created high-quality possessions all night.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.3
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 37.4m -19.7
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
S Ryan Rollins 32.7m
13
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.9

Exceptional activity levels and loose-ball recoveries kept his head above water when his typical scoring touch abandoned him. Even with his primary offensive rhythm disrupted, his willingness to grind out extra possessions validated his floor time.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 32.7m -17.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myles Turner 27.9m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely capped his overall value despite a noticeable spike in scoring volume compared to recent outings. He salvaged a near-neutral rating by protecting the rim and generating solid defensive metrics, but the perimeter shot selection was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 27.9m -14.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 27.2m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Perimeter spacing provided a strong baseline, but underlying defensive mistakes dragged his overall rating into the red. Opponents routinely targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his spot-up gravity and exposing his lateral limitations.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Gary Trent Jr. 26.9m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

A stark lack of offensive aggression tanked his overall impact, as he passed up open looks and fell drastically below his recent scoring averages. While he stayed engaged on the perimeter to post a positive defensive metric, the sheer absence of shot creation left a massive void in the halfcourt offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 26.9m -14.3
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 31.6m
26
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

A massive surge in shot-making efficiency fueled a stellar overall impact, breaking him out of a recent offensive slump. He decisively punished mismatches in the mid-post, generating high-value looks that completely tilted the halfcourt math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 31.6m -16.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 27.3m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.5

Relentless energy on the glass and timely perimeter shooting perfectly complemented the primary creators. His ability to blend high-motor hustle plays with mistake-free floor spacing resulted in a remarkably clean, highly positive performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 27.3m -14.4
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 16.8m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Forced drives into traffic and clunky mid-range attempts cratered his offensive value during a rough rotational stint. He maintained impressive point-of-attack pressure defensively, but the empty offensive possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 16.8m -8.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Amir Coffey 10.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Complete invisibility on both ends of the floor resulted in a steep negative rating during his brief rotation minutes. Failing to register a single hustle play or defensive stop, he was essentially a passenger while the opposition capitalized.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

A fleeting cameo snapped his recent streak of highly efficient shooting nights. There simply wasn't enough court time to establish any rhythm, though he did manage a quick defensive disruption before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1