GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Ajay Mitchell 30.9m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

An absolute terror in the hustle metrics (+6.7), his relentless energy on loose balls and offensive glass kept possessions alive. The sheer volume of extra possessions he generated helped offset the damage from several forced passes and transition turnovers.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 30.9m -16.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
28
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+19.1

Surgical precision in the half-court and elite defensive anticipation (+8.6 Def) fueled a massive positive impact. He systematically dismantled the Warriors' perimeter defense with unguardable drives, while his active hands in the passing lanes sparked multiple fast-break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.5
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 24.6m
23
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Flawless shot execution and terrifying rim deterrence (+5.2 Def) culminated in a dominant two-way masterclass. He completely neutralized Golden State's interior attacks while punishing drop coverage with decisive, high-efficiency scoring from all three levels.

Shooting
FG 9/9 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 111.4%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 24.6m -13.5
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 20.8m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.0

A combination of poor shot selection and missed defensive assignments (-2.2 Def) resulted in a heavily negative net score. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and forced contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, stalling the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.2
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 20.8m -11.3
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Bruising screen-setting and reliable interior finishing provided a sturdy offensive foundation. However, a handful of sloppy offensive fouls and delayed defensive rotations kept his overall impact from matching his impressive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 19.6m -10.6
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Exceptional charge-drawing ability and vocal defensive anchoring (+6.0 Def) highlighted a gritty, high-effort performance. He consistently put his body on the line against driving bigs, though a string of careless ball-handling mistakes limited his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 30.1m -16.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 29.1m
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Immense gravity from his perimeter shooting was ultimately dragged down by defensive lapses (-1.4 Def) and costly turnovers. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during a rough second-half stretch, giving back much of the value he created on offense.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 29.1m -15.9
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

Hesitant decision-making and a stark inability to finish through contact severely hampered his offensive utility. He frequently settled for low-percentage perimeter looks instead of attacking closeouts, allowing the defense to easily reset and trap.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 20.2m -11.1
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Solid rotational awareness and active closeouts (+3.2 Def) provided decent defensive value during his minutes. Unfortunately, a lack of offensive assertiveness and a couple of poorly timed offensive fouls resulted in a slightly negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 15.6m -8.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 15.3m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Generational point-of-attack defense (+11.3 Def) and relentless ball pressure completely suffocated the opposing backcourt. He single-handedly blew up multiple offensive sets with perfectly timed digs and deflections, driving a massive positive impact without needing offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +75.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +11.3
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 15.3m -8.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Active hands and proper defensive positioning (+1.9 Def) ensured he wasn't a liability during his brief stint. However, his complete lack of offensive involvement and a quick turnover prevented him from making any meaningful positive dent in the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 5.4m -2.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

Strong on-ball defensive metrics (+4.2) were completely overshadowed by a string of careless offensive fouls and live-ball turnovers. He struggled to read weak-side help during a crucial second-quarter stretch, negating the value of his above-average scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 23.7m -12.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Elite defensive positioning and disruptive passing lane activity (+7.8 Def) anchored a dominant two-way performance. He masterfully dictated the tempo during half-court sets, generating high-quality looks for teammates while completely shutting down his primary matchup on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 22.2m -12.0
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 21.9m
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.2

Offensive passivity and a brutal turnover rate severely dragged down his overall rating. He repeatedly forced high-risk passes into tight windows against the Thunder's active hands, completely neutralizing his typical defensive communication value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 21.9m -11.9
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Stephen Curry 20.0m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Uncharacteristic shot selection and a high volume of contested perimeter misses severely damaged his offensive gravity. The Thunder aggressively trapped him off screens, forcing multiple errant passes that fueled transition opportunities the other way.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -50.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 20.0m -10.9
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Quinten Post 16.6m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Rim protection and active closeouts provided a solid defensive floor (+3.1), but poor decision-making on the offensive end tanked his net impact. A pattern of moving screens and rushed perimeter shots prevented him from capitalizing on an otherwise energetic stint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 16.6m -9.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.2

Severe struggles with interior positioning and a high foul rate completely cratered his overall impact. He was consistently outmuscled on the glass by Oklahoma City's frontcourt, leading to costly second-chance points that overshadowed his efficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 22.3m -12.2
Impact -15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
Will Richard 22.0m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A flurry of undisciplined fouls and poor transition awareness negated a highly efficient perimeter shooting display. He repeatedly bit on pump fakes during a rough fourth-quarter stretch, giving away cheap free throws that offset his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.0m -12.0
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Relentless off-ball movement and exceptional positional rebounding drove a highly positive impact score. He consistently beat his man to loose balls and made the crucial extra pass during a pivotal third-quarter run, masking a slight dip in his usual scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -49.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 20.6m -11.2
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Moses Moody 20.1m
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Disciplined closeouts and timely weak-side rotations (+4.3 Def) kept his impact in the green despite a sharp drop in offensive production. He embraced a low-usage, high-effort role, making several key defensive stops against isolation drives to stabilize the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -51.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 20.1m -11.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Menacing on-ball pressure (+7.2 Def) and elite screen navigation defined his highly disruptive stint on the floor. He completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm by blowing up dribble hand-offs, proving invaluable despite barely looking at the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 15.0m -8.0
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 12.0m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

High-IQ cutting and opportunistic weak-side positioning drove a highly efficient offensive rating. He consistently found soft spots in the zone defense, converting high-percentage looks while maintaining excellent floor spacing for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 12.0m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Decisive downhill drives and excellent pacing in the pick-and-roll maximized his offensive impact. He exploited mismatches with relentless rim pressure, consistently collapsing the defense to create wide-open passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Buddy Hield 11.7m
4
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Surprisingly robust point-of-attack defense (+5.3) and active hands salvaged a relatively quiet offensive outing. He consistently fought over screens to deny dribble penetration, proving he could positively influence the game even when his perimeter shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 11.7m -6.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2