GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 29.4m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Plagued by poor shot selection from beyond the arc, a heavy volume of missed perimeter looks negated his solid defensive metrics. Continually settling for contested pull-ups rather than attacking the basket let the defense off the hook during critical possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 29.4m -14.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 29.1m
15
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.7

Utterly dominating the paint with a towering defensive rating, he altered countless shots at the rim to ignite transition breaks. Combined with high-percentage finishing on lobs and putbacks, his interior gravity dictated the entire geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +12.1
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 29.1m -14.4
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 26.9m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

A brutal volume of forced, contested mid-range jumpers derailed the offensive flow and plummeted his net impact. Snapping a streak of highly efficient games, his tendency to hold the ball and stall actions against strong-side double-teams proved exceptionally costly.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.0%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 26.9m -13.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Timely perimeter shot-making and disciplined defensive rotations drove a steady, positive impact. His knack for hitting momentum-shifting threes in transition routinely punished scrambling defenses and kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 26.3m -13.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 23.3m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Suffocating perimeter defense and highly efficient shot selection fueled a dominant two-way performance. His ability to completely erase the opponent's primary wing scorer while capitalizing on every open corner rotation made him an overwhelmingly positive force.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.5
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 23.3m -11.6
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Naz Reid 22.6m
22
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

An explosive offensive surge defined his massive impact score, as he ruthlessly exploited mismatch opportunities both inside and out. His aggressive, decisive shot selection broke a recent slump and completely overwhelmed the opposing second unit's frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 22.6m -11.1
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaylen Clark 18.8m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics were the engine behind his elite impact score, generating vital extra possessions through sheer effort. Relentless crashing of the glass and diving for loose balls completely masked an otherwise inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +7.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 18.8m -9.4
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 15.7m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Veteran defensive positioning and pristine offensive execution maximized his limited minutes on the floor. By avoiding costly mistakes and directing traffic flawlessly during half-court sets, he provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 15.7m -7.8
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Wild drives into traffic and a slew of missed floaters severely damaged his offensive efficiency. While he showed flashes of defensive activity, his inability to finish at the rim or convert from deep resulted in a net negative shift during his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -50.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 13.0m -6.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

A complete offensive disappearance tanked his rating, failing to generate any scoring production after a string of highly productive games. This sudden lack of aggression allowed defenders to cheat into the paint, severely bogging down the spacing for the rest of the unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 9.7m -4.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Highly efficient interior finishing and solid defensive anchoring yielded a strong positive impact in limited action. Capitalizing perfectly on dump-off passes, he sealed his man effectively and proved to be a highly reliable target around the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 7.8m -3.9
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Surprisingly disciplined defensive rotations kept his head above water despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring output. He avoided forcing bad shots during his brief appearance, playing within the flow of the offense to secure a slightly positive mark.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 7.8m -3.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 6.8m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Made his mark entirely through high-IQ defensive positioning and smart ball movement without taking a single shot. His ability to read passing lanes and execute flawless closeouts provided hidden value that kept the defense stable.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -48.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 6.8m -3.5
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

This brief cameo resulted in a virtually neutral impact score. While he capitalized on an open perimeter look, minor defensive lapses on the wing prevented him from pushing his rating into the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.0m -1.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 26.9m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite efficient shooting, his net rating slipped into the negative because of a surprisingly passive offensive approach that drastically reduced his usual offensive footprint. A lack of defensive playmaking and struggles against physical matchups further depressed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.9m -13.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moussa Cisse 25.5m
5
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Elite rim protection and disciplined defensive positioning anchored a massive positive defensive rating. Unfortunately, glaring limitations as a roll man and blown layups in traffic allowed the opposition to completely ignore him, sinking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/7 (14.3%)
Advanced
TS% 27.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 25.5m -12.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 24.9m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Strong defensive rotations and active hustle metrics nearly offset his offensive struggles. However, his overall impact dipped slightly below neutral due to clunky perimeter execution that stalled half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 24.9m -12.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless point-of-attack disruption and high-energy hustle plays salvaged a positive rating on a night when his jumper was broken. He managed to overcome poor shot selection and a heavy volume of missed floaters by consistently blowing up opponent dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 24.3m -12.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Max Christie 18.8m
1
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

An extreme level of offensive passivity tanked his impact score, as he completely vanished from the perimeter game plan. Failing to exert any spacing gravity or pressure on closeouts rendered him a virtual non-factor despite adequate defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 18.8m -9.3
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

Forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock routinely sparked opponent transition opportunities and cratered his impact score. A steep drop-off in his usual offensive aggression left a massive void in the second unit's rhythm, compounding the damage.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 33.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 23.2m -11.5
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.0

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance was amplified by poor shot selection, as he repeatedly settled for off-balance threes against set defenses. His inability to break down the primary defender stalled the half-court offense and generated a massive negative swing in overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 22.4m -11.0
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Caleb Martin 17.6m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Solid weak-side defensive rotations were overshadowed by a frustrating lack of offensive involvement. Passing up several open looks on the wing allowed the defense to overload the strong side, which stifled the team's primary actions and sank his rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 17.6m -8.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Excellent defensive positioning and off-ball tracking couldn't fully rescue a night ruined by bricked catch-and-shoot opportunities. Opponents began sagging off his perimeter spots during a crucial third-quarter stretch, which clogged the paint and dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 17.2m -8.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Managed to stay in the green entirely through bruising screen-setting and elite hustle metrics without taking a single shot. His willingness to do the dirty work, specifically sealing off rim protectors to create driving lanes, provided crucial hidden value.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 16.6m -8.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 13.7m
17
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Lethal perimeter execution drove his positive impact, as he consistently punished defenders for going under pick-and-roll screens. While his defensive metrics were merely average, his elite floor-spacing during a key second-quarter run provided essential offensive breathing room.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 42.1%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 13.7m -6.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

This low-event stint yielded a slightly negative impact due to a distinct lack of tangible hustle plays or transition pressure. He largely floated on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention, making him a passive presence who failed to tilt the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 9.1m -4.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0