GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Grayson Allen 27.5m
42
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+35.6

Delivered a thermonuclear shooting performance that single-handedly broke the opponent's zone coverage. His staggering +35.6 total impact wasn't just about the deep ball; he also generated a +7.9 defensive rating by blowing up dribble hand-offs at the point of attack. This was a defining two-way masterclass where every decision he made punished the defense.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 10/15 (66.7%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +36.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.9
Raw total +49.8
Avg player in 27.5m -14.2
Impact +35.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Booker 26.6m
19
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Cruised through the game with methodical mid-range execution, though his overall impact was surprisingly muted. A lack of high-intensity transition play and minimal off-ball hustle kept his net score hovering near neutral. He was highly efficient when calling his own number, but didn't consistently elevate the surrounding lineups.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.6m -13.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dillon Brooks 25.6m
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his negative net rating, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. He did provide excellent physical resistance against opposing wings, earning a +4.5 defensive mark. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips neutralized his gritty defensive work.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 25.6m -13.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 23.1m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Spaced the floor immaculately and punished late rotations with decisive perimeter shooting. His +3.0 hustle score highlights his crucial work digging down on the post and recovering to shooters. He acted as the perfect connective tissue for the starting unit, making rapid swing passes that kept the defense scrambling.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +42.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 23.1m -12.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mark Williams 20.2m
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Completely altered the geometry of the paint without needing a single offensive touch to be effective. He racked up a massive +6.5 defensive score by consistently meeting drivers at the apex and altering layups. His relentless rim-runs and offensive glass crashing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 4.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 20.2m -10.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 23.6m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.8

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the opposing guards, constantly getting caught on screens. His inability to stay attached defensively forced heavy rotation from the bigs, bleeding easy points at the rim. The offense essentially played four-on-five when he was on the floor, leading to a disastrous -12.8 total impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 23.6m -12.2
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Wreaked absolute havoc on the defensive end, using his physicality to bully opposing ball-handlers and blow up offensive sets. His elite +6.0 hustle rating was driven by a relentless pursuit of loose balls that demoralized the opposition. Even with a clunky offensive outing, his sheer willpower tilted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 23.1m -12.0
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 19.2m
2
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Failed to establish any vertical spacing, allowing the opposing center to camp in the lane and stifle the offense. Despite showing decent mobility on the perimeter (+3.0 defense), he was repeatedly out-muscled for critical defensive rebounds. The inability to secure the glass gave the opponent too many second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 19.2m -9.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Struggled to organize the half-court offense, frequently picking up his dribble too early against trapping pressure. While he hit a couple of timely perimeter shots, his defensive rotations were a half-step slow on the weak side. The resulting breakdowns slightly outweighed his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +74.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 13.4m -6.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Bled points defensively due to poor closeout technique, frequently allowing straight-line drives to the basket. His -1.2 defensive mark highlights how often he was targeted in isolation matchups. A single made perimeter shot wasn't nearly enough to cover up the defensive liabilities he presented.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +68.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 11.2m -5.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Maximized a brief rotation stint by playing decisively on both ends of the floor. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications by slipping screens for easy finishes. His energetic closeouts (+2.4 hustle) disrupted the opponent's rhythm just enough to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 8.7m -4.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided sturdy, mistake-free minutes as a drop-coverage big during the second quarter. He didn't demand the ball, instead focusing entirely on setting wide screens and sealing off rebounding lanes. It was a utilitarian shift that quietly stabilized the second unit's frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 8.4m -4.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Injected immediate energy into a stagnant lineup by diving for loose balls and fighting through heavy screens. His +3.3 hustle score in under five minutes perfectly encapsulates his high-motor approach. He didn't need to score to make the opposing unit uncomfortable.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 4.9m -2.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Looked completely out of sync during a disastrous garbage-time stint, missing rotations and clogging driving lanes. His -4.5 box score impact in just four minutes reflects multiple blown coverages and a total lack of offensive awareness. The game simply moved too fast for him to process.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 4.5m -2.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 32.9m
21
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite strong perimeter containment that fueled a +6.0 defensive rating, inefficient shot selection from deep dragged his overall impact into the red. He repeatedly settled for contested pull-ups early in the shot clock rather than attacking closeouts. The defensive effort couldn't fully offset the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 32.9m -17.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jeremiah Fears 30.7m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Offensive rhythm completely collapsed inside the arc, where he repeatedly forced wild floaters into heavy traffic. While his point-of-attack pressure yielded a respectable +4.3 defensive score, the sheer volume of wasted possessions cratered his net rating. The inability to finish through contact negated any value he brought as a perimeter pest.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 30.7m -15.9
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Saddiq Bey 29.1m
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Value was buoyed by timely weak-side rotations and active hands in the passing lanes, generating a solid +4.5 defensive impact. Even with a streaky shooting night, his willingness to crash the offensive glass and secure 50/50 balls kept his overall footprint positive. He consistently punished defensive lapses with hard baseline cuts.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 29.1m -15.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Herbert Jones 28.6m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Passive offensive stretches allowed the opposing defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter, stalling the half-court offense. He still provided his baseline level of elite screen navigation and deflections (+3.0 hustle). However, the lack of scoring gravity ultimately suffocated his team's spacing during crucial second-half runs.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 28.6m -14.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kevon Looney 16.3m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Masterclass in low-usage effectiveness, anchoring the interior with textbook verticality and bruising screen assists. He generated extra possessions by tipping out offensive rebounds against bigger matchups. His +4.3 total impact proves you don't need offensive touches to dictate the flow of a game.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 16.3m -8.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Derik Queen 25.0m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Anchored the second unit with superb pick-and-roll coverage, hedging hard and recovering seamlessly to his man. His +5.4 defensive rating was well-earned by denying deep post position against heavier centers. A few rushed hooks in the paint kept his overall score modest, but the foundational rim protection was highly effective.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 25.0m -13.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Brought his trademark chaotic energy and backcourt pressure (+2.8 hustle), but the offensive execution was too erratic to yield a positive net score. He killed several fast breaks by over-dribbling into the teeth of the defense instead of advancing the ball. The defensive disruption simply couldn't outpace the offensive stagnation he caused.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 23.4m -12.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Capitalized on every rotation mistake the defense made, finishing with ruthless efficiency around the basket. His +12.4 box impact was driven by decisive rolls to the rim and zero wasted movement on offense. He completely dominated the non-starter minutes by sealing his man early in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 16.7m -8.7
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Micah Peavy 16.1m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Struggled to find the pace of the game, often looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. His negative impact stemmed directly from stalled offensive sequences and late closeouts on the perimeter. He was frequently targeted in isolation during the second quarter, bleeding points before the coaching staff pulled him.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 16.1m -8.3
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.0

A complete non-factor offensively who failed to bend the defense with his usual off-ball movement. His -14.0 cratering was exacerbated by getting consistently lost on back-door cuts defensively. The opposing backcourt ruthlessly exploited his flat-footed closeouts during a disastrous first-half stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 11.6%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -5.8
Avg player in 16.0m -8.2
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Flashed some decent weak-side awareness during a brief stint, contributing to a slight positive defensive bump. However, he failed to leave a lasting imprint on the game's momentum. His minutes were mostly a placeholder while the primary rotation caught its breath.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 5.3m -2.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1