GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 37.2m
19
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.7

Weighed down by erratic shot selection and forced isolation drives that frequently ended in empty possessions. Although he competed hard on the defensive end, his tendency to over-dribble into traffic stalled the offensive flow and likely fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. The high-volume inefficiency ultimately eclipsed his playmaking flashes.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 37.2m -23.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Lauri Markkanen 36.0m
40
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.1

Carried the offensive load with a masterclass in off-ball movement and decisive shot-making over heavy contests. His sheer gravity warped the opponent's defensive shell, opening up the weak side for cutters even when he didn't touch the ball. The combination of elite true shooting and timely weak-side rebounding cemented a dominant overall performance.

Shooting
FG 15/25 (60.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +30.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 36.0m -22.9
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ace Bailey 31.8m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Flashed high-level shot creation by attacking closeouts and finishing through contact at the rim. His rating was bolstered by disciplined closeouts and active hands on the perimeter, proving he could impact winning without needing isolation sets. A highly efficient scoring night paired with attentive weak-side rotations made this a strong two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 31.8m -20.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jusuf Nurkić 28.2m
10
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.7

Operated as a brilliant high-post hub, picking apart defensive coverages with sharp interior passing. His true value, however, came from a massive defensive impact driven by textbook verticality at the rim and bruising box-outs. He sacrificed his own offense to orchestrate the offense and anchor the paint with bruising physicality.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +15.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 28.2m -18.0
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 6
S Svi Mykhailiuk 24.7m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.9

Disastrous shift defined by bricked perimeter looks and a complete inability to stay in front of his man defensively. The offense ground to a halt when he spotted up, as defenders aggressively stunted off him to clog the paint. Without his shot falling, his lack of secondary playmaking or rim protection made him a massive liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 24.7m -15.7
Impact -16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.6

Struggled to manage the game's tempo, bleeding value through sloppy ball-handling and poor pick-and-roll reads. His defensive positioning was frequently exploited by quicker guards, forcing the frontcourt into difficult rotation scenarios. The lack of point-of-attack resistance and disjointed offensive orchestration resulted in a heavy negative swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 25.2m -16.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Anchored the second unit with superb positional awareness, generating a strong defensive impact by consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs. While his offensive volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he made up for it with high-IQ screens and timely loose-ball recoveries. A textbook glue-guy performance that prioritized team structure over individual counting stats.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 17.6m -11.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
Kevin Love 15.5m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

Foot speed limitations were ruthlessly targeted in space, forcing the defense into constant scramble mode to cover his assignments. He managed to salvage some value through veteran positioning and outlet passing, but the inability to contest stretch bigs on the perimeter was costly. The offensive spacing he provided couldn't outpace the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 15.5m -9.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Faded completely into the background during a passive stint where he failed to assert himself on either end of the floor. Without aggressive cuts or decisive spot-up shooting, his defender was free to roam and clog the driving lanes for others. The lack of physical engagement on the glass or in transition left his overall impact deeply in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 12.1m -7.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Hemorrhaged value on the defensive end by consistently losing his man off the ball and offering zero resistance at the point of attack. While he found some rhythm with his jumper, his complete lack of hustle events meant he was purely a one-way player. The defensive breakdowns and lack of secondary effort easily wiped out his scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 11.7m -7.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 40.6m
31
pts
18
reb
14
ast
Impact
+19.7

A dominant two-way clinic defined by elite defensive anchoring that completely neutralized frontcourt matchups. His relentless motor on the glass and in passing lanes fueled transition opportunities, masking any minor efficiency dips. This was a masterclass in dictating the game's tempo through sheer physical presence and anticipation.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +23.1
Raw total +45.5
Avg player in 40.6m -25.8
Impact +19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 7
BLK 0
TO 6
S Onyeka Okongwu 35.3m
32
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.0

Completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme by stepping out as a high-volume perimeter threat. The spacing he provided unlocked driving lanes for the guards, while his rim protection and active hands stifled interior attacks. His sudden emergence as a stretch-big was the defining tactical advantage of the night.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 8/14 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +10.2
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 35.3m -22.6
Impact +16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 4
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

Overcame a clunky shooting night by locking in as a premier point-of-attack defender. His ability to navigate screens and disrupt opposing ball-handlers generated a massive defensive impact score. Gritty 50/50 ball recoveries and relentless perimeter pressure ensured he remained a strong net positive despite the offensive dip.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.0
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 29.6m -18.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 26.7m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Extreme offensive passivity severely dragged down his overall rating, as he vanished from the scoring column and allowed defenders to sag off him. While he salvaged some value through active hands in the passing lanes, the lack of rim pressure stalled half-court sets. The opponent effectively ignored him, creating a 4-on-5 dynamic that crippled the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 26.7m -17.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite an aggressive scoring punch that exceeded his recent averages, his overall impact slipped into the red. Defensive rotations were a step slow, failing to generate meaningful stops or hustle events during his shifts. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities but offered little resistance on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 19.2m -12.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Punished drop coverages relentlessly with a barrage of highly efficient perimeter strikes. Beyond the scorching perimeter touch, his size allowed him to hold up well on switches, denying easy entries into the post. His decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics perfectly capitalized on the gravity of the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 111.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 32.3m -20.5
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 20.2m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Kept the floor stretched with decisive perimeter trigger-pulling, punishing defensive rotations whenever left open. Surprisingly, his impact was heavily buoyed by disciplined positional defense, as he consistently funneled drivers into help rather than getting blown by. A steady, mistake-free shift that provided exactly the specialized floor-spacing required.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 20.2m -12.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

A complete inability to convert on offense cratered his rating, as he bricked multiple open looks and stalled out possessions. He tried to compensate with high-energy ball pressure, but the empty offensive trips allowed the opponent to consistently set their half-court defense. The sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his scrappy perimeter effort.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 15.4m -9.8
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Forced too many contested looks in a short stint, bleeding value through inefficient shot selection. The lack of secondary contributions on defense or the glass meant his missed attempts directly fueled opponent momentum. He played with tunnel vision on offense, failing to leverage his physical tools into meaningful stops.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 14.8m -9.5
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Asa Newell 5.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Barely registered during a brief rotation stint, failing to make any offensive imprint. He did flash some functional length on the defensive end by contesting a pair of drives, but the sample size was too small to swing his overall impact. Ultimately served as a placeholder who neither hurt nor helped the core units significantly.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0