GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 29.3m
33
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.3

Elite shot-creation and playmaking volume drove a massive positive impact, easily absorbing the damage from seven missed threes. Dictated the offensive tempo entirely, punishing drop coverages and forcing constant defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 38.8%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 29.3m -15.3
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 28.0m
32
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.4

Exploded out of a two-game slump with a masterclass in aggressive, efficient shot-making. Supplemented the scoring barrage with relentless physical play (+3.8 Hustle) that completely overwhelmed his individual matchups.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 28.0m -14.7
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 23.0m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Passive offensive involvement and sluggish defensive rotations plummeted his overall value. Passed up multiple open looks, disrupting spacing and allowing the defense to cheat off him.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 23.0m -12.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nick Richards 15.2m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Completely neutralized as a roll threat, failing to attempt a single field goal in his minutes. The inability to bend the defense or command the paint left his team playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 15.2m -7.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Grayson Allen 12.2m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Broke out of a recent shooting funk by hunting high-quality looks and converting at an elite clip. Paired the offensive efficiency with disciplined closeouts (+2.6 Def) to deliver a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 12.2m -6.3
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 26.4m
17
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+26.7

An absolute defensive masterclass (+19.4 Def) combined with relentless rim-running yielded a monstrous impact score. Dominated the interior through sheer activity (+5.8 Hustle), extending his hyper-efficient finishing streak while erasing opponent paint touches.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +100.5
+/- +52
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +19.4
Raw total +40.4
Avg player in 26.4m -13.7
Impact +26.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

High-energy loose ball recoveries (+3.9 Hustle) couldn't fully mask the damage from erratic perimeter execution. While he shot better than his recent dismal stretch, poor game management in transition kept his net rating in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +56.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 23.5m -12.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.5

Wreaked havoc as a rebounding guard, generating massive value through second-chance creation and physical defense (+5.4 Def). His opportunistic scoring punished sleeping defenders and provided a crucial secondary punch.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +62.4
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 22.6m -11.8
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Managed to get on the board after a scoreless stretch, but still struggled to find a consistent offensive rhythm. Solid positional defense (+2.0 Def) kept him viable, though his missed triples stunted offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +56.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 19.5m -10.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 19.0m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Offensive invisibility and a failure to stretch the floor crippled his overall effectiveness. Despite decent rotational energy (+2.1 Hustle), his reluctance to attack the basket stalled out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +47.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 19.0m -9.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Bricked jumpers and empty offensive possessions dragged down a shift defined by high motor (+3.2 Hustle). Flew around the court to create chaos, but the lack of scoring gravity made him a liability on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 7.8m -4.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Failed to establish his usual interior presence, looking a step slow on both ends of the floor. The sharp drop in scoring efficiency coincided with a lack of physical engagement in the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 7.2m -3.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided mild rim deterrence (+1.6 Def) but was otherwise a non-factor during his brief stint. Struggled to anchor the offense or create space, resulting in a slightly negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.4m -3.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 30.9m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Negative overall impact despite solid baseline production due to defensive lapses and inefficient isolation scoring. Failed to match his recent offensive rhythm, settling for eight missed shots that consistently derailed offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.9
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 30.9m -16.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 27.4m
21
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.8

High-volume scoring output was entirely negated by severe inefficiency and defensive breakdowns. The inflated point total masked a damaging shot selection pattern of ten missed field goals that consistently bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 27.4m -14.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Defensive positioning and timely rotations (+4.3 Def) anchored his positive impact in limited minutes. Maximized his touches with smart shot selection rather than forcing contested looks.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 27.4m -14.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 20.1m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Overcame a rough shooting night by generating extra possessions through high-motor plays (+4.3 Hustle). His off-ball activity and defensive switchability salvaged a performance where his typical scoring punch vanished.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 20.1m -10.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tony Bradley 17.1m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Efficient interior finishing buoyed his baseline value, though a lack of peripheral hustle plays kept his overall impact muted. Operated primarily as a traditional roll man without expanding his defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 17.1m -9.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.0

An absolute offensive cratering defined this outing, as he missed every single one of his ten shot attempts to kill multiple possessions. While he tried to compensate with active hands on defense, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his impact score into the abyss.

Shooting
FG 0/10 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 9.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -49.4
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 26.4m -13.8
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 21.7m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Perimeter misses and defensive miscommunications heavily outweighed his strong effort metrics (+3.7 Hustle). Failed to capitalize on spot-up opportunities, turning potential scoring runs into empty trips.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -47.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 21.7m -11.3
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Continued a remarkably consistent streak of high-percentage finishing around the rim. Combined smart rim-running with active rebounding positioning (+2.5 Hustle) to maximize his short-stint value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -79.4
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 16.6m -8.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Snapped a highly efficient four-game stretch with a barrage of forced interior looks that tanked his offensive value. Remained a pest at the point of attack (+3.1 Def), but the bricked floaters ultimately flattened his net contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -108.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 15.1m -7.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 14.3m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Faded completely out of the offensive gameplan, failing to replicate his recent scoring surge. Managed to provide decent rim deterrence (+2.3 Def), but his lack of offensive aggression rendered him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 14.3m -7.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Floated through his minutes without leaving a tangible imprint on either end of the floor. A lack of playmaking initiation and zero defensive disruption resulted in a hollow stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -88.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Outstanding point-of-attack coverage (+3.8 Def) nearly offset a completely dormant offensive showing. Struggled to find his spots in the half-court, halting his recent momentum as a reliable secondary scorer.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 9.4m -4.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a brief but effective offensive spark during his limited run. Kept the ball moving and knocked down his only perimeter look to ensure a positive quick-hit shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +128.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 3.4m -1.7
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