GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 37.6m
27
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.6

A disastrous showing from beyond the arc and defensive apathy resulted in a negative net impact despite his high usage. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested long-range jumpers rather than pressuring the rim, bailing out the defense on multiple possessions. The empty calories of his raw production hid how much his inefficiency stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 37.6m -23.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Dillon Brooks 35.5m
34
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

An absolute masterclass in two-way aggression resulted in a massive impact score, shattering his recent offensive slump. He relentlessly attacked mismatches off the dribble, bullying smaller defenders in the mid-post to generate high-quality looks. Coupled with suffocating point-of-attack defense, he completely dictated the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +6.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 35.5m -22.0
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 28.1m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor defensive positioning and an inability to secure contested rebounds severely damaged his overall impact. Opposing bigs frequently sealed him deep in the paint, neutralizing his rim protection and generating back-breaking second-chance points. His lack of volume masked how much structural damage occurred during his interior defensive shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 28.1m -17.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 24.9m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

A brutal shooting slump completely cratered his offensive value and dragged his total impact deep into the negative. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, stalling the offense and feeding opponent transition opportunities. Without his usual floor-spacing threat, the paint became severely clogged for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -35.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 24.9m -15.5
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ryan Dunn 23.9m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Timely perimeter shooting and active hands in the passing lanes drove a solid positive impact score. He stepped up his offensive aggression, punishing defenders who sagged off him in pick-and-pop scenarios to break out of a recent scoring lull. His secondary playmaking also helped sustain the offense when the primary initiators faced heavy pressure.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +4.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 23.9m -14.8
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.3

Gritty rebounding from the guard position and excellent defensive anticipation anchored his highly positive impact. He broke out of a severe shooting slump by focusing on dribble penetration, collapsing the defense to create wide-open looks for his teammates. His sheer work rate on loose balls consistently tilted the possession battle in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 31.9m -19.8
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

A massive surge in scoring efficiency and relentless attacking of the basket drove his stellar impact. He thrived in transition, using his strength to finish through contact and force defensive collapses that broke open the game. His ability to secure long rebounds and immediately initiate the fast break kept the opponent constantly on their heels.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 21.8m -13.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Perfect shooting from the perimeter wasn't enough to overcome his struggles navigating defensive screens, leading to a slightly negative overall impact. He was repeatedly targeted by off-ball movement, resulting in defensive breakdowns that compromised the entire unit. While his floor spacing was valuable, the easy points he surrendered negated his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +54.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 17.1m -10.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Failing to establish any physical presence in the paint, his minutes resulted in a damaging impact score. He was frequently late on weak-side rotations, allowing uncontested layups that erased any marginal offensive contributions. The lack of vertical spacing or rim deterrence made him a severe liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 13.9m -8.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

A complete lack of offensive involvement snapped his streak of highly efficient performances, rendering him a negative presence during his brief cameo. He failed to establish deep post position or set meaningful screens, causing the half-court offense to bog down. Without his usual finishing gravity, the spacing suffered significantly.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 5.2m -3.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.5m
25
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.3

Despite dominant raw production, his overall net impact was heavily suppressed by defensive lapses and costly live-ball turnovers. He dictated the pace beautifully in transition, but his tendency to force low-percentage passes in the half-court gave possessions right back to the opponent. The underlying mistakes dragged down what appeared to be a stellar outing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 39.5m -24.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Onyeka Okongwu 37.2m
27
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.2

An aggressive interior mindset nearly doubled his recent offensive output, anchoring a massive positive impact. He dominated his frontcourt matchups by establishing deep post position early in the shot clock, forcing opposing bigs into uncomfortable foul situations. Strong weak-side rim protection further cemented his status as the game's most influential two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 37.2m -23.2
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 36.6m
11
pts
7
reb
12
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite playmaking and relentless off-ball movement drove his positive impact, even with a low-volume scoring profile. He consistently broke down the primary point of attack, generating high-quality corner looks for teammates while rarely forcing his own offense. His hyper-efficient shot selection ensured that nearly every touch yielded a positive outcome for the unit.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +8.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 36.6m -22.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
26
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.8

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and sustained isolation aggression translated into a dominant net impact. He thrived in perimeter matchups, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and ignite fast breaks through sheer physical exertion. Even when his outside shot wavered, his relentless ball pressure kept the opponent entirely out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +12.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 35.3m -22.0
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

A massive surge in offensive aggression compared to his recent passive stretch fueled a highly productive outing. Defensively, his active hands and rotational awareness completely shifted the momentum during the middle quarters. His willingness to take contested perimeter shots kept the defense stretched, maximizing his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 26.1m -16.2
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Poor perimeter shot selection and defensive fragility dragged his net impact deep into the red. Opponents consistently attacked his closeouts, exposing his lateral slowness and forcing defensive rotations that led to wide-open corner looks. While he managed a few hustle plays, they were not enough to offset the structural damage caused during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 21.9m -13.5
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

His inability to control the tempo or initiate meaningful offense resulted in a negative overall impact despite decent shooting efficiency. He struggled to navigate through screens defensively, allowing opposing guards to gain early advantages in the half-court. His minutes were characterized by passive positioning rather than proactive playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -95.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 12.5m -7.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 11.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A complete lack of shot creation tanked his overall value, as he failed to score after a highly efficient recent stretch. Without his gravity as a floor spacer, the half-court offense stagnated and driving lanes evaporated during his minutes. His inability to generate any perimeter threat rendered him a severe net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 11.6m -7.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Bleeding value on both ends of the floor, his brief stint resulted in a disastrous impact score due to poor spatial awareness. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, yielding easy driving lanes and compounding his offensive struggles. The lack of physical engagement or rim deterrence made his minutes highly detrimental to the team's defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -74.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.9
Raw total -3.9
Avg player in 10.4m -6.5
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 9.0m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

A quick burst of scoring provided a vital spark during a crucial second-half stretch, elevating his impact above his recent baseline. He capitalized on broken plays and defensive miscommunications, finding soft spots in the zone for easy conversions. This opportunistic shot-making allowed him to post a positive impact despite limited overall involvement.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 9.0m -5.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0