GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.1m
25
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.7

Drove the offense through sheer volume, though his shot selection occasionally bailed out the defense. His tremendous versatility as a help-defender and transition playmaker kept his overall value solidly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.0
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 39.1m -22.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 37.6m
12
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.6

Wreaked havoc at the point of attack, generating immense value through deflections and ball pressure. His disciplined shot selection and ability to connect the offense seamlessly translated into a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +9.8
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 37.6m -21.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Tanked his own value by forcing contested looks from beyond the arc, short-circuiting multiple offensive sets. The high scoring volume was entirely offset by defensive lapses and a stubborn refusal to stop shooting through his slump.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense -1.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 36.7m -21.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Vít Krejčí 36.1m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.6

Suffered a disastrous stint where his perimeter bricklaying actively killed offensive possessions. The massive negative rating stems from being repeatedly targeted and blown by in isolation defense on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 36.1m -20.9
Impact -15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.6m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Surprised the defense by stepping out and knocking down perimeter looks at a high clip. Despite the offensive surge and active screen-setting, his impact was neutralized by poor pick-and-roll containment that bled points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 33.6m -19.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
11
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Created massive second-chance opportunities by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass. Even with a shaky perimeter stroke, his sheer physical exertion in the paint drove a highly productive rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 21.4m -12.4
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 17.1m
3
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.6

Passed up open looks and failed to exert any gravitational pull on the opposing defense. His passive approach offensively combined with a lack of physicality on the boards resulted in a deeply negative shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 17.1m -9.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Provided a brief flash of spacing by capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. Ultimately played to a standstill, as his solid offensive execution was perfectly counterbalanced by quiet defensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 13.2m -7.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Looked completely out of sync during a brief cameo, forcing bad shots and missing defensive assignments. The quick hook from the coaching staff was justified by his immediate negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely broke a sweat during garbage time minutes. Registered a slight negative impact simply by being on the floor during an opponent's late scoring sequence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -63.3
+/- -4
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 -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 33.8m
25
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+4.2

Heavy offensive usage yielded mixed efficiency due to a brutal night hunting shots from the perimeter. However, his elite playmaking gravity and steady defensive rotations salvaged a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 33.8m -19.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 30.7m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite solid perimeter spacing, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive liabilities in isolation matchups. The scoring punch from deep couldn't fully mask the transition points given up on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 30.7m -17.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Daniss Jenkins 29.7m
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

Generated positive momentum by aggressively attacking closeouts and facilitating drive-and-kick sequences. While his outside shot wasn't falling, his point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 29.7m -17.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 28.9m
24
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.7

Completely controlled the paint through sheer physical dominance and relentless activity on the glass. His streak of highly efficient finishing continues to anchor the offense, generating massive value through second-chance opportunities and rim-deterrence.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +4.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 28.9m -16.7
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaiah Stewart 26.2m
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage that stifled opponent drives. His efficient rim-running and positional rebounding provided a steady, positive baseline whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 26.2m -15.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Brought high-energy rotations and active hands that popped in the hustle metrics. Unfortunately, his inability to stretch the floor or create advantages in the half-court offense ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 28.6m -16.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game despite decent defensive metrics. A lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to sag off him, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates and dragging down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 23.8m -13.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Faded into the background during his shifts, offering minimal resistance at the point of attack. His reluctance to challenge defenders or force the issue offensively resulted in empty minutes that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 18.6m -10.8
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Chaz Lanier 11.0m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Operated purely as a floor-spacer, launching from deep whenever daylight presented itself. While the perimeter volume provided a brief offensive jolt, his lack of engagement on the defensive end kept his overall contribution marginal.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 11.0m -6.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 8.8m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Provided a massive spark in limited minutes by crashing the glass and executing flawless weak-side rotations. Maximized his brief stint on the floor by converting every look around the basket and disrupting passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 8.8m -5.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0