GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 34.6m
28
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
+9.5

Slicing through point-of-attack defenders at will allowed him to generate high-value looks for both himself and his teammates. This masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll resulted in a highly efficient offensive clinic that overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 34.6m -19.2
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 33.9m
16
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.2

Errant perimeter marksmanship prevented a good performance from becoming a great one. He salvaged a slightly positive rating by utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate crucial stops on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 33.9m -18.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Harrison Barnes 30.2m
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.1

A sudden offensive resurgence paired perfectly with relentless two-way energy to drive a massive positive rating. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to hit timely spot-up jumpers completely shifted the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 30.2m -16.8
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luke Kornet 27.6m
13
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.4

Absolute perfection around the rim and elite rim-protection metrics yielded a dominant analytical profile. By converting every interior look and deterring drivers with verticality, he controlled the paint on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +5.3
Defense +11.3
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 27.6m -15.5
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 15.6m
4
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Struggling to navigate ball screens effectively led to stagnant offensive possessions and a sharp decline from his usual scoring output. Even a handful of high-effort loose ball recoveries couldn't offset the damage caused by his inability to penetrate the defense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 15.6m -8.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Defensive lapses off the ball negated the value of his floor-spacing on the other end. Getting caught ball-watching allowed backdoor cutters to score easily, sinking his overall metric despite a respectable shooting clip.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Bully-ball drives into the paint salvaged an otherwise dreadful perimeter shooting night. Crashing the glass with physicality ensured his team maintained possession advantages, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 22.8m -12.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Hyper-efficient shot selection was undermined by costly mistakes in transition that gave the ball right back to the opponent. While he capitalized on nearly every open look, hidden negative plays kept him just below the break-even mark.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.2m -12.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kelly Olynyk 18.4m
5
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.9

Operating as a high-post hub generated quality looks for cutters, but his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him. A few sluggish closeouts on the perimeter ultimately tipped his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 18.4m -10.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Forcing three heavily contested perimeter shots in a short span completely stalled the second unit's momentum. This lack of offensive discipline turned a brief rotational stint into a significant analytical sinkhole.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -58.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 6.6m -3.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made a fleeting cameo appearance that was just long enough to register a positive defensive blip. His brief stint was defined by a single solid rotation that deterred a drive before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 39.1m
27
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.9

Masterful shot selection defined this outing, as he surgically dismantled defensive coverages from the midrange to generate elite scoring efficiency. His massive offensive output was further amplified by active off-ball movement that consistently kept the opponent scrambling.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 39.1m -21.8
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Defensive rebounding and interior positioning anchored his highly positive rating. By consistently securing contested boards and initiating transition play, he neutralized the opponent's second-chance opportunities while keeping the offense flowing.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 36.2m -20.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.5

High-energy defensive rotations and relentless rebounding could not salvage a heavily penalized offensive showing. Errant finishing at the rim and likely ball-security issues torpedoed his overall metric despite his undeniable motor on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 34.7m -19.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Zach LaVine 24.6m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.8

Perimeter inefficiency severely capped his offensive value, as he struggled to find a rhythm from deep. Despite engaging well defensively and making a few key hustle rotations, his inability to bend the defense as a scoring threat dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 24.6m -13.8
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 14.8m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

A stark regression from his recent scoring form left a noticeable void in the second-unit offense. Hesitant perimeter shooting and a lack of defensive disruption made it difficult to justify extended minutes during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
22
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.3

Catching fire from beyond the arc completely transformed the offensive spacing. This unexpected perimeter explosion punished drop coverages and provided a massive analytical boost that far exceeded his usual production.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 35.2m -19.7
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 28.1m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Shot selection proved to be a major detriment, as forced attempts early in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions. While he showed flashes of defensive engagement, the sheer volume of missed jumpers allowed the opposition to dictate the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 28.1m -15.6
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 11.8m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided a sturdy, if unspectacular, interior presence during his rotation minutes. His ability to hold ground in the post and execute fundamental defensive assignments kept the team afloat without requiring offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 11.8m -6.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan after a string of solid performances. Failing to connect on any field goal attempts and generating zero gravity on the perimeter made him a distinct liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 10.9m -6.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

An abrupt halt to his recent hot streak occurred during a highly disjointed rotational stint. Rushing a pair of ill-advised perimeter looks derailed his offensive rhythm before he could establish any interior presence.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.6m -2.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0