GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 34.7m
10
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Poor shot selection and bricked jumpers severely handicapped the offense during his shifts. He competed hard defensively, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions on the other end dragged his overall impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 34.7m -18.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 33.2m
26
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Relentless rim pressure and elite hustle plays overwhelmed the opposing defense. He dictated the pace of the game entirely, pairing an aggressive scoring outburst with disruptive defensive activity to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +7.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 33.2m -18.2
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 32.1m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.4

An absolute masterclass in shot selection and offensive execution drove a dominant positive rating. He relentlessly punished defensive lapses from the perimeter while adding high-level hustle plays to completely control his minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 32.1m -17.5
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luke Kornet 25.1m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Proved that scoring isn't required to dominate a game, anchoring the defense with elite rim protection and rotational awareness. His standout defensive metrics and constant hustle plays easily overcame a completely blank offensive stat line.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 1.7%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 25.1m -13.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

A significant drop in offensive aggression limited his ability to influence the game. Despite decent efficiency when he did shoot, his passive approach allowed the defense to focus elsewhere, hurting the team's overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 24.4m -13.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Consistent downhill attacking and strong defensive engagement resulted in a solid positive impact. He balanced his offensive workload with disciplined rotations, making him a steadying presence on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 30.2m -16.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite continuing his streak of efficient shooting, defensive lapses and poor positioning undermined his overall effectiveness. He capitalized on his offensive touches, but gave up too much ground on the other side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 22.2m -12.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kelly Olynyk 18.6m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

A sudden burst of offensive confidence and smart positional defense provided a crucial spark off the bench. He exploited mismatches perfectly, delivering a highly efficient two-way performance that far exceeded his recent output.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +37.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 18.6m -10.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Made the most of limited run by executing decisively on offense and staying solid within the defensive scheme. His quick scoring burst provided a noticeable jolt during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 7.8m -4.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Kept the ball moving and played within himself during a short rotational stint. He didn't force any action, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact on the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 6.9m -3.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brief but disastrous stint where forced shots and poor execution quickly bled value. He failed to find the mark from the perimeter, actively hurting the offensive flow before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

A heavy volume of empty possessions dragged down his overall rating, as forced shots and poor perimeter execution short-circuited the offense. While he generated some counting stats, the sheer number of wasted offensive trips proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 33.2m -18.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.3

Playmaking brilliance was completely neutralized by poor shot selection and perimeter struggles. He operated effectively as a distributor, but the inability to capitalize on his own scoring opportunities left his net impact hovering near zero.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 29.8m -16.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 26.6m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Strong defensive positioning and hustle plays kept his overall impact in the black despite a quiet offensive night. His perimeter contests and off-ball activity provided enough supplementary value to offset a lack of scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 26.6m -14.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 25.5m
19
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled an unexpected scoring surge that broke open the offense. His ability to consistently punish defensive rotations from deep created a compounding positive effect on the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 25.5m -13.9
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Zach Edey 25.1m
8
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Inefficiency around the basket severely limited his effectiveness, turning what should be high-percentage looks into empty trips. His defensive presence provided some stability, but failing to convert on interior touches ultimately sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 25.1m -13.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Santi Aldama 25.9m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Defensive versatility and rim deterrence salvaged a rough shooting night. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm, but his ability to disrupt opponent actions kept his overall contribution positive.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 25.9m -14.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Spencer 23.6m
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite a sharp uptick in scoring fueled by clean perimeter execution, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to a lack of defensive resistance. He capitalized on his offensive touches beautifully, but gave too much back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 23.6m -12.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

A complete lack of offensive rhythm cratered his value, as missed perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag off him. While he maintained his usual defensive standards, the inability to space the floor proved too detrimental.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 18.9m -10.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 17.6m
4
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

An abysmal finishing performance around the rim destroyed his offensive value and derailed multiple possessions. He offered some resistance defensively, but clanking high-percentage interior looks ultimately doomed his rating.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.4%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 17.6m -9.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
John Konchar 13.8m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Complete offensive invisibility dragged his impact into the red. He provided solid defensive rotations and hustle, but failing to exert any pressure on the opposing defense made him a liability on that end.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 13.8m -7.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0