GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 36.0m
27
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.5

A barrage of ill-advised perimeter attempts capped what could have been a dominant offensive rating. While his aggressive downhill drives kept the defense collapsing, settling for contested triples limited his overall net influence.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 36.0m -20.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Lauri Markkanen 34.8m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Floor-spacing gravity drove a solid positive impact, forcing opposing bigs to constantly step out to the perimeter. He supplemented his outside shooting with timely hustle plays to maintain value even when heavily guarded inside the arc.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 34.8m -19.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 28.3m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.5

Severe shot-selection issues tanked his overall rating, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep to snap his recent hot streak. The lack of defensive resistance compounded the damage from his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 28.3m -15.6
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 27.5m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Active hands and excellent weak-side rotations anchored a highly productive two-way performance. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his commitment to contesting shots and fighting through screens kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 27.5m -15.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 25.4m
6
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Atrocious finishing around the rim completely erased the value of his solid interior defense. He repeatedly threw up wild, contested floaters in traffic, functioning as a possession-killer for the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 25.4m -14.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

Tremendous energy on loose balls wasn't enough to overcome a sudden freeze in his recent shooting efficiency. He struggled to find his footing against physical post defense, snapping a long streak of highly accurate scoring nights.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +7.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 26.5m -14.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Smothering perimeter defense was completely overshadowed by a dreadful shooting performance that stalled out multiple possessions. He rushed his mechanics under pressure, turning potential offensive momentum into empty trips.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.8m -9.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Kevin Love 16.7m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

A sharp bounce-back in shooting efficiency was offset by a lack of sustained physical presence in the paint. He operated strictly as a pick-and-pop specialist, keeping his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 16.7m -9.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.6

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely negated a highly efficient playmaking stint off the bench. Opposing guards consistently blew past him at the point of attack, neutralizing the value of his excellent court vision.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 15.8m -8.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Instant microwave offense in a condensed timeframe fueled a highly efficient overall rating. He decisively attacked closeouts and capitalized on broken defensive coverages without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 11.2m -6.1
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 38.0m
35
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.4

Exploding out of a two-game slump, his dynamic shot creation fueled a massive +26.3 box impact. He aggressively hunted mismatches on the perimeter, punishing drop coverages with decisive pull-up jumpers to completely flip his recent offensive trajectory.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 38.0m -21.1
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Bricklaying from beyond the arc completely cratered his overall value despite respectable defensive metrics. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks prevented him from capitalizing on his usual off-ball movement.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 37.5m -20.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 34.8m
16
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Defensive versatility drove his positive impact, as his +7.0 rating on that end compensated for a slight cooling off from his recent offensive tear. His length on the perimeter effectively shrunk passing windows and generated steady hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 34.8m -19.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 34.1m
27
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.2

A dominant two-way showing was anchored by a surprisingly robust +10.7 defensive impact rating that stifled interior matchups. He maintained his highly efficient offensive rhythm by bullying his way to high-percentage looks in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +10.7
Raw total +34.1
Avg player in 34.1m -18.9
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 33.6m
14
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Vertical spacing and rim deterrence were the primary catalysts for his strong +5.7 overall rating. By capitalizing on drop-coverage mismatches, he found extra offensive volume while maintaining his usual defensive anchor duties.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 33.6m -18.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Naz Reid 28.0m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite hustle metrics (+6.2) and high-level defensive rotations salvaged a positive impact on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. Instead of forcing the issue offensively, he committed to doing the dirty work in the paint to keep his value afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 28.0m -15.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Mike Conley 17.6m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Passive offensive initiation severely limited his overall influence during his rotational minutes. While he managed the game without glaring errors, his reluctance to pressure the rim allowed the defense to entirely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 17.6m -9.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylen Clark 12.6m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

A complete lack of hustle stats and defensive lapses in limited minutes resulted in a steep negative rating. He failed to make any physical imprint on the game, floating on the perimeter rather than attacking the glass or disrupting ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 12.6m -7.0
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

A brief garbage-time run yielded almost zero statistical footprint across the board. He primarily served as a placeholder, making no notable mistakes but failing to generate any offensive traction.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0