GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 34.6m
35
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.1

An absolute masterclass in shotmaking and offensive spacing generated a sky-high positive impact. He weaponized his size against smaller defenders on switches, creating unblockable looks from the perimeter. While his defensive metrics dipped slightly, his relentless hustle and elite scoring gravity completely broke the opponent's game plan.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +35.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +39.2
Avg player in 34.6m -22.1
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 30.7m
11
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Turnovers and heavy foul costs dragged his total impact into the negative despite strong defensive positioning. He struggled with the speed of the opponent's guards, often getting caught out of position in space. The physical screen-setting and hustle plays weren't enough to cover up the costly mistakes in possession.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 30.7m -19.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 27.3m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.5

Lethal off-ball movement and decisive catch-and-shoot execution drove a massive positive impact. He consistently punished defensive lapses, finding soft spots in the zone for high-value looks. Active perimeter defense further boosted his score, proving he was engaged on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 27.3m -17.3
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Keyonte George 26.7m
10
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-14.1

A disastrous volume of missed shots and poor offensive reads resulted in a catastrophic negative impact. He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and fueling transition opportunities. Poor point-of-attack defense compounded the damage, allowing straight-line drives to the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 26.7m -17.1
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 25.6m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Timely perimeter shotmaking kept his impact in the green, punishing defenders who went under screens. He lacked defensive playmaking, offering little resistance at the point of attack. Still, his ability to stretch the floor opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 25.6m -16.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite highly efficient finishing, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive lapses and a lack of hustle plays. Opponents targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his offensive orchestration. He needs to show more resistance at the point of attack to convert his offensive efficiency into a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +38.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 26.9m -17.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
16
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

High-IQ defensive rotations and the ability to draw fouls inside fueled a strong positive impact. He consistently beat his man to the spot, altering shots without fouling. His continued streak of efficient finishing around the basket punished smaller defenders on switches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 20.2m -12.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive passivity and an inability to create separation tanked his impact score. He passed up open looks and disrupted the team's offensive flow, allowing defenders to cheat off him. While he held his own defensively, the complete lack of scoring threat made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 18.6m -11.9
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Exceptional defensive disruption and opportunistic perimeter shooting drove a highly efficient stint. He jumped passing lanes aggressively, turning defensive stops into immediate transition threats. His willingness to take and make contested outside shots punished the opponent's drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 16.0m -10.2
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive breakdowns and an inability to stay in front of his man dragged his impact into the negative. He generated some offense by drawing contact, but gave it right back by losing his assignments off the ball. The lack of defensive awareness overshadowed his flashes of offensive creation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 12.2m -7.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely saw the floor in a brief appearance that offered no chance to build rhythm. A quick defensive miscue during his short stint resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 35.1m
27
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-quality shot selection inside the arc anchored his strong positive impact, continuing a highly efficient offensive stretch. Active hustle metrics show he kept possessions alive when half-court sets bogged down. Despite a slight dip in defensive resistance, his reliable scoring gravity dictated the opponent's coverages all night.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 35.1m -22.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 31.9m
17
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite hustle metrics and disruptive perimeter defense salvaged a net-positive night despite a high volume of missed twos. He routinely sacrificed his body to generate extra possessions, masking his struggles to finish in traffic. His willingness to take tough defensive assignments set a physical tone that metrics heavily rewarded.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 31.9m -20.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 29.5m
25
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.2

A massive scoring surge driven by aggressive downhill drives heavily outweighed his defensive lapses. Opposing guards found success attacking him off the dribble, which suppressed his total impact. However, his decisive shot creation in the second half broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.4
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 29.5m -18.8
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Perimeter hesitancy and missed outside looks dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. He compensated with timely defensive rotations and solid hustle plays that disrupted opposing drives. Ultimately, the lack of offensive spacing he provided allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 21.8m -13.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tony Bradley 19.6m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Negative defensive impact cratered his overall score, as opponents routinely exploited his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll. While he finished efficiently around the rim, his inability to contest effectively in space gave back those gains. The lack of secondary hustle plays further limited his effectiveness during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 19.6m -12.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.3

Dominant interior presence and relentless rim-running translated into a massive positive impact. He completely controlled the paint, altering shots defensively while converting high-percentage dump-offs on the other end. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient finishing, his vertical spacing forced the defense into impossible rotation choices.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 22.6m -14.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter completely tanked his overall value despite excellent defensive metrics. He settled for heavily contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, killing offensive momentum. Excellent weak-side rim protection prevented this from being an even deeper negative performance.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 22.1m -14.0
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Ben Sheppard 17.0m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Blanking from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive gravity and overall impact. While he remained engaged defensively and fought through screens, the inability to punish closeouts stalled the second-unit offense. His floor-spacing value evaporated, allowing the defense to pack the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 17.0m -10.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

Uncharacteristic poor shot selection and an inability to penetrate the initial layer of defense resulted in a stark negative impact. He failed to generate advantages in the pick-and-roll, leading to stagnant late-clock situations. Solid positional defense wasn't enough to offset his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 12.4m -7.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Chaotic ball pressure and exceptional hustle metrics drove a massive impact score in limited minutes. He consistently blew up dribble handoffs, turning defensive disruption into transition opportunities. Even with some missed floaters, his relentless pace completely changed the game's tempo off the bench.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 38.7%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 11.4m -7.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 11.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Forcing outside shots out of rhythm ruined his offensive impact and broke a streak of efficient play. He offered elite rim deterrence during his brief stint, anchoring the paint effectively. However, the empty offensive possessions outweighed his defensive anchors.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -63.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 11.1m -7.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Invisible on the offensive end during a brief cameo, failing to register a single field goal attempt. He provided marginal defensive resistance but lacked the aggression to alter the game's flow. The negative score reflects empty minutes where he simply occupied space rather than forcing the action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.4m -3.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0