GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 38.1m
26
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.4

Bully-ball drives and exceptional playmaking out of the post completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. By consistently collapsing the defense and finding cutters, he generated massive offensive value despite a cold night from beyond the arc. High-end defensive rebounding and physical rim contests cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.7
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 38.1m -20.8
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Edwards 37.9m
26
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.2

Elite on-ball defensive pressure and relentless transition attacks salvaged an otherwise disastrous perimeter shooting night. Despite bricking every attempt from deep, his sheer athletic force generated enough rim pressure and defensive stops to keep his team afloat. The defensive metrics heavily insulated his overall impact from the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.5
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 37.9m -20.7
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.2

Errant perimeter execution and a step slow on defensive rotations resulted in a catastrophic plus-minus crater. Failing to connect from deep allowed defenders to cheat off him, which completely clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. Without his usual off-ball disruption, his extended minutes became a major liability.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 34.1m -18.6
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 32.8m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Consistent point-of-attack defense and timely hustle plays kept his overall impact firmly in the green. Even with his scoring volume dipping slightly below his recent averages, his ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest on the perimeter proved highly valuable. He served as a crucial stabilizing force for the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 32.8m -17.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Rudy Gobert 23.2m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

A startling lack of offensive involvement and diminished rim-running gravity severely limited his effectiveness. Opponents successfully neutralized his roll-threat, allowing them to stay home on shooters and stall the half-court offense. Even with standard rim protection metrics, his inability to punish switches led to a steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 23.2m -12.6
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
Naz Reid 31.1m
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Lethal pick-and-pop execution stretched the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point. By consistently punishing drop coverages from beyond the arc, he injected massive offensive momentum into the second unit. His floor-spacing gravity was the primary catalyst for his strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 31.1m -17.0
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Mike Conley 24.9m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Passive offensive initiation and an inability to pressure the paint allowed the defense to dictate the tempo during his shifts. While he avoided major mistakes, the lack of aggressive rim attacks or shot creation bogged down the half-court flow. His minimal statistical footprint ultimately translated to a heavy negative swing in the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 24.9m -13.6
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 11.1m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Peripheral involvement in the offensive scheme limited his ability to positively influence the game. Though he provided a few bursts of energy on the defensive end, his overall passivity made it difficult to swing the margins. The brief rotational stint ended up slightly in the red due to a lack of tangible playmaking.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 11.1m -6.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

A quick, energetic stint provided a minor spark of defensive intensity off the bench. He managed to stay disciplined in his assignments, ensuring the second unit didn't bleed points during a critical transition period. This brief flash of competence was enough to register a slight positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 6.7m -3.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 38.6m
23
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
-2.7

Heavy isolation volume and clunky perimeter execution dragged his overall impact into the red. While he managed to generate raw production, the sheer number of empty possessions and missed jumpers disrupted the team's offensive rhythm. His defensive effort remained steady, but it couldn't mask the inefficiency of his shot diet.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 38.6m -21.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 37.2m
27
pts
12
reb
11
ast
Impact
+9.9

Operating as the absolute hub of the offense, his elite shot-creation and floor-spacing punished every defensive coverage thrown his way. High-level defensive positioning and rebounding secured extra possessions, driving a massive positive net rating. The combination of perimeter touch and interior gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 37.2m -20.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Aaron Gordon 35.7m
23
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

An uncharacteristic barrage from beyond the arc completely transformed his offensive gravity and fueled a massive positive impact. By punishing sagging defenders from the perimeter, he opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. His sturdy frontcourt defense further solidified a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +42.8
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 35.7m -19.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Peyton Watson 34.1m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite registering excellent hustle and defensive metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to offensive stagnation during his shifts. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to sag, bogging down half-court sets. The high energy in 50/50 situations simply couldn't offset the broader rotational struggles.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 34.1m -18.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.2

Scorching perimeter efficiency single-handedly tilted the math in his team's favor during his minutes. His elite shot-making off the catch forced hard closeouts, completely scrambling the opponent's defensive rotations. This sudden burst of high-leverage scoring resulted in a team-high overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 29.5m -16.0
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bruce Brown 30.1m
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

A sudden collapse in finishing around the rim cratered his value after a long stretch of highly efficient play. The inability to convert high-percentage looks derailed multiple offensive sets and allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. Without his usual slashing effectiveness, his defensive contributions weren't enough to salvage a brutal stint.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 30.1m -16.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Extreme offensive passivity severely handicapped the spacing, as he failed to attempt a single shot from the field in over a quarter of action. While his defensive positioning and rotations were fundamentally sound, being a complete non-threat on the other end allowed defenders to aggressively double the primary options. This one-way playstyle ultimately resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 17.3m -9.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Solid interior positioning and reliable finishing yielded a highly efficient, albeit brief, frontcourt stint. He capitalized on his physical mismatches in the paint, generating easy offense without forcing the issue. This steady execution provided a stabilizing positive bump for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 11.5m -6.3
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A brief, completely empty rotational stint yielded a steep negative return. Failing to establish any offensive rhythm or defensive presence, he was largely a spectator during his time on the floor. The lack of tangible hustle or spacing effectively forced his team to play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 6.1m -3.3
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0