GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 36.5m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

A brutal volume-shooting display completely torpedoed his offensive value, as he routinely settled for contested pull-ups early in the clock. While his point-of-attack defense remained highly disruptive, the sheer number of empty possessions he generated dragged his overall impact deeply into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 36.5m -20.2
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 36.1m
9
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Completely monopolized the painted area, using his massive catch radius to clean up misses and generate elite hustle metrics. His drop-coverage deterrence forced opponents into low-percentage floaters all night, cementing a rock-solid positive impact despite minimal scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +7.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 36.1m -20.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.6

Sizzling perimeter marksmanship was entirely undone by sloppy ball security and ill-advised gambles in the passing lanes. Every time he stretched the floor offensively, he seemingly gave the value right back by allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 36.0m -20.1
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 32.6m
32
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.9

Bullied his way to his spots with overwhelming physicality, punishing mismatches in the post to sustain a highly efficient offensive engine. His ability to draw double teams and exploit rotating defenses masked a lack of secondary hustle plays, driving a dominant overall net score.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +25.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 32.6m -18.1
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mike Conley 27.4m
10
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to create separation against younger, quicker guards, leading to stagnant offensive sets and forced passes. Though he managed the game flow adequately, his inability to threaten the rim allowed the defense to cheat off him, resulting in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 27.4m -15.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 27.3m
28
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.5

Torched the drop coverage by popping into open space and burying perimeter looks with supreme confidence. His offensive explosion was perfectly paired with surprisingly nimble perimeter defense against switches, culminating in a monstrous overall impact rating that flipped the game.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 27.3m -15.2
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 25.8m
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Operated as an absolute menace at the point of attack, blowing up dribble handoffs and fighting through screens to generate an elite defensive rating. His offensive limitations were easily masked by the sheer volume of chaotic, possession-saving hustle plays he produced.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.4
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 25.8m -14.4
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Derailed the second-unit offense with severe tunnel vision, hijacking possessions for low-percentage, contested jumpers. Lacking the defensive resistance or hustle metrics to compensate for his offensive inefficiency, his brief stint was a clear negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +75.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 9.6m -5.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Salvaged a disastrous shooting stint by surprisingly holding his own on the defensive perimeter, staying attached to shooters and funneling drivers to the help. His erratic shot selection threatened to derail the offense, but his defensive discipline in a short burst kept his head above water.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +47.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 8.7m -4.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 37.4m
23
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.2

Relentless energy chasing loose balls and extending possessions fueled an impressive hustle rating. However, his heavy usage likely came with hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or missed rotations, dragging his overall net impact down despite a loud statistical night.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 37.4m -20.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S CJ McCollum 30.9m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

A steady diet of contested, late-clock jumpers tanked his offensive efficiency and allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game. The lack of secondary hustle plays or point-of-attack resistance compounded the damage, resulting in a severely negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 30.9m -17.3
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the interior with surprisingly stout rim protection, yielding a massive defensive boost that drove his overall positive rating. He consistently sealed off driving lanes and contested without fouling, proving highly effective even without his usual hyper-efficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 30.6m -17.0
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 29.3m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite shot selection maximized his offensive footprint, taking only high-value looks to break out of a recent shooting slump. His perimeter length disrupted passing lanes, generating a strong defensive rating that kept his overall impact firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 29.3m -16.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 27.4m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Snapped out of a prolonged shooting funk by hunting high-percentage midrange spots rather than forcing contested looks. Active hands in the rebounding scrum added vital hustle value, though defensive lapses against quicker wings kept his overall net impact grounded.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 27.4m -15.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Struggled mightily to find his rhythm, forcing awkward attempts around the basket that routinely sparked opponent fast breaks. His inability to anchor the drop coverage exposed the paint, leading to a disastrous overall net rating despite some decent effort on the glass.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -47.7
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 20.0m -11.2
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Whitmore 19.6m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Provided a massive spark off the bench by attacking closeouts with decisive, downhill aggression. His physical frame absorbed contact well on the defensive end, creating a highly efficient two-way performance in a condensed window.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 19.6m -10.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Johnson 17.4m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Generated value primarily through relentless off-ball movement and high-energy closeouts on the perimeter. While his playmaking was nonexistent, his willingness to do the dirty work and take only in-rhythm shots kept his overall contribution in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 17.4m -9.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Passive decision-making effectively turned the offense into a 4-on-5 situation during his minutes. Without his usual scoring punch to keep defenders honest, his slight defensive liabilities were magnified, causing his overall impact to crater.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 16.6m -9.2
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Completely vanished from the flow of the offense, bricking open perimeter looks and failing to bend the defense. Offering zero resistance on the other end or on the glass, his brief stint on the floor was a massive drain on the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 10.7m -5.9
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1