GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.2

Lethal perimeter shot-making paired with highly disruptive defensive length resulted in a monstrous overall rating. His ability to shoot over heavy contests demoralized the defense and broke the game open during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.1
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 33.7m -17.8
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 30.1m
7
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Abysmal interior finishing completely cratered his value despite elite rim protection. A brutal pattern of blown layups and forced shots in traffic turned him into an offensive black hole that the defense happily ignored.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 28.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 30.1m -16.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Terance Mann 27.2m
3
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.3

Offensive hesitation and bricked perimeter looks stalled the half-court engine. By repeatedly passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, he allowed the defense to pack the paint and suffocate his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 23.2m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Sunk by poor finishing inside the arc and likely turnover issues, negating a hot hand from deep. His inability to convert in traffic after beating the initial defender marred an otherwise active two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 23.2m -12.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Noah Clowney 22.7m
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

A breakout offensive showing was nearly neutralized by defensive concessions in the paint. While he found a great rhythm spotting up, his struggles to anchor the weak side allowed too many easy interior looks.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 22.7m -12.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Overcame a barrage of missed shots through sheer energy and defensive versatility. Timely hustle plays and active hands in the passing lanes during the fourth quarter salvaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.3m -14.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 24.5m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Disastrous overall value driven by forced, low-quality attempts and a complete lack of offensive rhythm. His persistent inability to punish sagging defenders allowed opponents to completely abandon him and double the post.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 24.5m -12.9
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Lockdown perimeter defense anchored a surprisingly strong positive rating. He completely erased his primary assignment from the game plan, turning limited touches into highly efficient two-way value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 17.9m -9.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.2

Utterly dominant performance fueled by relentless activity and physical imposition in the paint. A devastating stretch of second-chance generation and rim protection completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +8.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 17.9m -9.5
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 11.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Brutal outing defined by forced perimeter attempts and offensive stagnation. His inability to find the bottom of the net completely disrupted the second unit's flow and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 11.6m -6.2
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Danny Wolf 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Logged mere seconds of garbage time, suffering a minor negative hit from a quick defensive breakdown. He was unable to establish any rhythm before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor, registering a negligible negative score due to a brief period of offensive stagnation. The limited run prevented him from making any meaningful contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
22
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.1

A barrage of missed perimeter shots and defensive concessions canceled out his offensive aggression. The sheer volume of empty possessions he consumed stalled the half-court flow, turning a seemingly productive outing into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 35.2m -18.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 32.8m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense kept his value afloat on a night where his perimeter jumper abandoned him. His relentless navigation of high pick-and-rolls disrupted the opposing offense enough to offset a slew of clanked deep looks.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +10.4
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 32.8m -17.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jaylen Brown 32.0m
29
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-volume usage yielded surprisingly neutral overall value due to underlying inefficiency and likely turnover bleed. His aggressive downhill attacks generated strong hustle metrics, but empty-calorie possessions down the stretch kept his net impact flat.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
S Neemias Queta 22.9m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Elite defensive anchoring and timely hustle plays drove a highly positive rating despite a quiet night scoring the ball. A dominant stretch of paint protection in the second half completely altered the opponent's shot profile.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 22.9m -12.1
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 11.2m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Defensive breakdowns completely erased a flawless offensive stint. His inability to navigate screens and stay in front of his assignment created a glaring weak point that opponents ruthlessly targeted.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.7
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 11.2m -5.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

Disastrous overall impact suggests severe defensive bleeding and costly live-ball turnovers. Despite capitalizing on his few offensive touches, his inability to contain dribble penetration turned his minutes into a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 26.1m -13.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Sam Hauser 22.0m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Phenomenal off-ball gravity and elite defensive rotations fueled a massive positive rating. A crucial sequence of back-to-back deflections highlighted a performance where his impact vastly exceeded his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +49.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +6.4
Defense +7.8
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 22.0m -11.7
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 20.4m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Faded into the background offensively, resulting in a perfectly neutral rating. A few solid hustle sequences on the glass were the only notable moments in an otherwise passive rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 20.4m -10.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 19.2m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Flawless shot selection and capitalized spot-up opportunities drove a highly efficient stint. His ability to punish defensive rotations from the corner stretched the floor and maximized his team's offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 19.2m -10.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Passivity and poor defensive positioning dragged his rating into the red. Opponents easily isolated him on the perimeter, exploiting his lateral slowness during a rough second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.4m -7.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

A brief, invisible stint yielded a slightly negative return due to a lack of physical imposition. He failed to secure the interior or alter shots during his limited rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0