GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 38.6m
36
pts
18
reb
13
ast
Impact
+25.7

An absolute masterclass in offensive orchestration and defensive rebounding generated a staggering positive impact score. He dictated the terms of engagement on every single possession, overcoming a cold night from beyond the arc through sheer volume and unparalleled court vision.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +31.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +13.2
Raw total +49.0
Avg player in 38.6m -23.3
Impact +25.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 37
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 40.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jamal Murray 38.3m
34
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.9

Sustained shot-creation against set defenses kept the offensive engine humming all night. He paired his lethal pull-up game with engaged point-of-attack defense, ensuring his high usage rate translated directly into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.2%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 38.3m -23.1
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 36.9m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Blistering perimeter shot-making was entirely offset by defensive lapses and an inability to secure loose balls. He operated strictly as a floor-spacer, meaning his value plummeted the moment the opponent targeted him in pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 36.9m -22.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Peyton Watson 34.0m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Extreme offensive passivity created a massive structural disadvantage that cratered his overall impact. Even though he provided elite weak-side defensive rotations, his refusal to look at the rim allowed the defense to completely ignore him and trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 34.0m -20.5
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 32.4m
24
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Bully-ball tactics in the dunker spot and relentless rim-running fueled a highly productive offensive showing. His impact would have been even higher if he hadn't settled for low-percentage perimeter looks that bailed out the defense.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 32.4m -19.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 22.5m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

A complete disappearance on the offensive end resulted in a devastatingly negative net rating. By failing to pressure the rim or even look for his own shot, he allowed the opposing defense to aggressively double-team the primary creators without penalty.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 22.5m -13.6
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock derailed the second unit's offensive flow. He surprisingly managed to mitigate the damage with highly engaged perimeter defense, but the empty offensive possessions were too frequent to ignore.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -61.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 16.2m -9.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Tentative decision-making as a primary ball-handler bogged down the offensive tempo during his minutes. While he hit a perimeter shot to boost his baseline, a complete lack of hustle plays left his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 10.4m -6.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Logging empty minutes without registering a single field goal attempt severely hampered the bench unit's spacing. He was effectively a ghost on the floor, failing to generate any meaningful hustle or defensive metrics to justify his rotation spot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -103.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 6.0m -3.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A brief, ineffective stint in the paint failed to establish any interior dominance. His inability to secure deep post position or alter shots around the rim led to a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -132.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 4.5m -2.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 30.3m
21
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.4

Masterful dribble penetration and finishing at the rim drove a massive surge in his offensive value. By completely abandoning the three-point line and playing to his strengths in the paint, he generated high-quality looks that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 30.3m -18.3
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 29.1m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Inefficient volume shooting heavily dragged down an otherwise strong defensive performance. His erratic shot selection inside the arc negated the value he provided as a weak-side rim protector and disruptor.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 29.1m -17.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.8

Clanking a high volume of pick-and-pop threes severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. He salvaged some value through interior hustle and positioning, but the sheer number of empty possessions he generated proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 29.0m -17.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 60.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kevin Huerter 24.0m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive offensive spike that kept the floor stretched all night. However, his overall impact remained modest due to a lack of secondary contributions in the hustle and defensive categories.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 24.0m -14.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 19.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

A stark offensive regression from his recent efficient stretch completely tanked his overall impact. While he maintained a solid defensive presence on the wing, his hesitancy to attack and missed perimeter looks left the offense playing 4-on-5.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 19.9m -12.1
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 25.8m
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.3

Ruthless efficiency in transition and on straight-line drives anchored a phenomenal offensive rating. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, punishing the opponent with flawless shot selection that maximized his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +48.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 25.8m -15.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 18.1m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Floating on the perimeter rather than attacking the seams resulted in a largely invisible offensive stint. While he avoided major mistakes, his lack of high-leverage hustle plays or defensive disruption failed to move the needle during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +51.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 18.1m -10.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jevon Carter 18.1m
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

A barrage of deep perimeter shots artificially inflated his offensive production while masking poor overall possession quality. His inability to create anything inside the arc or generate defensive stops ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +56.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 18.1m -10.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 17.9m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.1

Dominating the interior with elite rim-protection and relentless hustle plays generated the highest net impact on the roster. He completely flipped the momentum of the game by pairing that defensive anchor role with a lethal pick-and-pop touch.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.0
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 17.9m -10.8
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite showing slightly more offensive aggression than his recent baseline, forced perimeter jumpers kept his overall efficiency in the red. His inability to generate high-percentage looks negated a fundamentally sound defensive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.0m -10.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense completely salvaged a rough shooting night. He provided a crucial spark by blowing up multiple opponent actions, proving his value lies entirely in his athletic disruption rather than his scoring touch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 10.7m -6.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0