GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
21
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Volume scoring masked a highly inefficient shooting night that actively hurt the team's half-court rhythm. He settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite decent rebounding positioning, the poor shot quality drove his overall impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 35.7m -19.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 35.5m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.0

Completely dominated the interior with a relentless diet of rim-runs and putbacks, nearly doubling his usual offensive output. His defensive impact was equally profound, utilizing his length to alter shots and blow up pick-and-roll actions. This was a masterclass in utilizing vertical spacing to warp the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 35.5m -19.1
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 34.7m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

A massive scoring breakout was heavily supported by elite defensive metrics and rim protection. However, his overall impact hovered just below neutral due to erratic perimeter shooting and likely a few costly defensive fouls. The aggressive rim-running and weak-side blocks showcased his ceiling, even if the deep attempts were forced.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 34.7m -18.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Terance Mann 32.5m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Despite providing solid point-of-attack defense, his inability to finish through contact severely limited his offensive value. He frequently stalled the offense by hesitating on open looks, allowing the defense to reset. The negative total impact highlights how much his lack of decisive playmaking dragged down the unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 32.5m -17.5
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 27.5m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.1

Lethal perimeter marksmanship stretched the defense and opened up driving lanes for the entire rotation. He paired this floor-spacing gravity with active hands in the passing lanes, generating key deflections that sparked transition breaks. A highly effective two-way performance defined by confident shot-taking and timely hustle.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.5m -14.9
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 21.5m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Strong defensive metrics and active rebounding were undermined by poor offensive execution and forced shots. He struggled to find a rhythm against set defenses, often driving into traffic without a clear exit strategy. The hustle was undeniable, but the lack of offensive polish kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 21.5m -11.6
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

An absolute disaster of a shooting performance completely cratered his offensive value and derailed the team's spacing. He stubbornly continued to launch from deep despite failing to connect on a single attempt, leading to wasted possessions. The sheer volume of missed shots and subsequent long rebounds fueled a massive negative swing in total impact.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 11.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 17.0m -9.1
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 15.6m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a reliable release valve for the offense, but his overall impact was dragged down by defensive lapses. He struggled to contain straight-line drives, frequently requiring help that compromised the defensive shell. The perimeter accuracy was a plus, but the inability to stay in front of his man negated those gains.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.6m -8.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to generate any pressure or spacing during his stint. His negative impact was exacerbated by slow defensive rotations that left shooters wide open on the perimeter. A lack of assertiveness made it essentially a four-on-five situation when the team had the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 13.6m -7.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Saraf 2.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maximized a brief cameo by executing perfectly on his lone offensive opportunity. He didn't have enough time to make a dent in the hustle or defensive metrics, but his quick decision-making kept the offense flowing. A highly efficient, albeit microscopic, positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +183.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 2.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Managed to generate a positive net impact in garbage time by drawing contact and converting at the charity stripe. His brief stint was characterized by solid positional awareness that prevented any easy defensive breakdowns. A steady, mistake-free appearance that nudged the metrics slightly upward.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +183.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Injected a quick burst of perimeter scoring during a fleeting end-of-game rotation. He confidently stepped into a deep look, showcasing readiness despite the lack of consistent minutes. The limited sample size capped his overall impact, but he executed his specific role perfectly.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +183.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 2.2m -1.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 32.7m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

An aggressive scoring mentality fueled a massive offensive surge, though his perimeter stroke struggled to find consistency. His overall impact was buoyed by solid defensive rotations and timely contests that disrupted the opponent's rhythm. The sheer volume of his downhill attacks forced defensive collapses, offsetting the missed deep looks.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 59.6%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 32.7m -17.5
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
24
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.0

Explosive shot creation shattered his recent scoring slump, driving a massive surge in offensive impact. He consistently manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to generate clean pull-up opportunities and high-value rim attempts. Add in pesky point-of-attack defense, and this was a complete, tone-setting performance.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 31.7m -17.0
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 30.6m
15
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Elite hustle metrics highlight a performance defined by relentless activity on the glass and loose ball recoveries. His high-percentage interior finishes punished mismatches in the paint, ensuring maximum efficiency on low volume. Defensively, his switchability neutralized multiple actions, cementing a highly positive two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 30.6m -16.5
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jakob Poeltl 29.6m
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.1

Dominant interior presence anchored the team's defensive structure, reflected in an elite positive defensive impact score. He consistently erased driving angles and controlled the paint, while his flawless shot selection extended a streak of highly efficient finishing. A masterclass in executing the drop coverage scheme while punishing over-rotations on the roll.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +9.3
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 29.6m -15.9
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 28.5m
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.3

A brutal shooting night from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall offensive value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. While he generated some positive momentum through secondary hustle plays, the sheer volume of empty possessions derailed his net impact. The inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint against his drives.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.3%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 28.5m -15.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 19.8m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Perimeter struggles completely neutralized his floor-spacing gravity, allowing defenders to sag off and clog driving lanes for teammates. Despite a slight uptick in overall scoring from his recent slump, the lack of defensive playmaking or secondary creation left his total impact firmly in the red. He was frequently targeted on switches, compounding the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 19.8m -10.7
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Perfect execution on limited touches highlighted his offensive discipline, maintaining a streak of hyper-efficient shooting. However, his defensive positioning left something to be desired, occasionally getting caught out of position against quicker forwards. The flawless shot selection ultimately kept his head above water in the net impact column.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.7%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 19.6m -10.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 17.8m
6
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

High-energy defensive pressure and active hands generated solid hustle metrics, but his overall impact dipped due to offensive limitations. He operated primarily as a ball-mover rather than a scoring threat, which occasionally stalled half-court execution. A few costly rotational mistakes on the weak side ultimately pushed his net score into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.8m -9.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Defensive breakdowns heavily penalized his brief stint on the floor, as he struggled to navigate off-ball screens. While he managed to knock down a pair of spot-up triples, it wasn't enough to counteract the easy baskets surrendered on the other end. The overall negative impact stems directly from an inability to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.6
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 15.1m -8.1
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

A quiet offensive night saw his scoring output plummet, limiting his ability to influence the game's momentum. He provided sturdy weak-side defensive help, but the lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor. Ultimately, his passive approach to finding open space resulted in a slightly negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 13.1m -7.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting rotational appearance that offered zero statistical production. His negative impact score reflects the inherent difficulty of finding rhythm or making a tangible mark in under two minutes of action. Essentially a cardio session with no meaningful events to evaluate.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0