GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
33
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.0

A staggering +19.6 box score metric highlights a masterclass in offensive initiation and relentless rim pressure. He consistently probed the paint to create high-value looks for himself while simultaneously anchoring the perimeter defense (+6.8). This MVP-caliber performance was defined by his ability to dictate the pace and systematically dismantle the opponent's drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 35.6m -16.8
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 33.1m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite doubling his recent scoring average and shooting lights-out from deep, his overall impact slipped into the red (-1.9). This disconnect suggests his minutes coincided with massive opponent runs, likely driven by rotational breakdowns elsewhere on the floor. His individual point-of-attack defense (+4.5) was strong, but couldn't overcome the heavily negative lineup data during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 33.1m -15.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 31.0m
21
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

An absolutely dominant defensive performance (+9.2) anchored his highly positive overall impact. He punished mismatches inside with highly efficient interior scoring, completely offsetting a cold night from three-point range. His elite rim protection altered countless drives, single-handedly short-circuiting the opponent's paint attack.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.2
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 31.0m -14.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 6
4
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Mastered the dirty work to generate a +2.2 impact despite taking only two shots all game. His value was entirely driven by elite rebounding positioning and connective passing out of the high post that kept the offense humming. He essentially served as an offensive hub and defensive anchor without needing to look at the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 26.5m -12.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 26.1m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

High-level two-way execution drove a superb +4.5 impact score off the bench. He blended opportunistic perimeter shooting with suffocating on-ball defense (+3.8) to swing the momentum during the middle quarters. His ability to capitalize on defensive breakdowns without forcing bad shots perfectly optimized his role.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 26.1m -12.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite excellent defensive metrics (+6.3) and solid playmaking, his impact fell into the red due to highly inefficient perimeter shooting. He failed to connect on any of his three-point attempts, which allowed defenders to confidently go under screens and blow up pick-and-roll actions. The resulting offensive stagnation outweighed his otherwise stellar point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 29.1m -13.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
Alex Caruso 20.7m
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brutal showing from beyond the arc dragged his overall impact just below neutral (-0.8). While he provided his trademark elite defense (+5.0) and connective passing, his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed the opposition to aggressively crowd the paint. His shooting struggles ultimately neutralized the immense value he provided on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.7m -9.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 20.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A severe regression in shooting efficiency tanked his overall impact into the negative after a recent hot streak. Because his primary value is floor spacing, missing nearly all of his three-point attempts allowed the defense to aggressively collapse on drives. While his defensive rotations were solid (+2.2), it wasn't enough to compensate for the offensive spacing issues he inadvertently caused.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 20.3m -9.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Managed to stay in the green (+1.1) entirely through elite hustle plays (+3.6) during a brief, scoreless stint from the floor. He sacrificed his body for loose balls and set bone-jarring screens that don't show up in traditional stats. This performance proves how high-IQ positioning can salvage a shift when the jump shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 9.7m -4.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

A quick hook limited his ability to positively influence the game, resulting in a -1.3 overall impact. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game during his brief rotational minutes, missing a pair of rushed looks. His inability to quickly adapt to the game's pace made him a slight liability during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 4.9m -2.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Barely saw the floor, logging just 90 seconds of mop-up duty at the end of the game. The slightly negative impact (-0.4) is essentially statistical noise from a meaningless stretch of basketball. He simply didn't have the runway to affect the outcome in any meaningful way.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.5m -0.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Maximized a tiny 90-second window by immediately knocking down his only shot attempt to generate a highly positive +2.3 impact. This hyper-efficient cameo showcased his readiness to shoot the moment he stepped on the court. It was a perfect, albeit brief, execution of a micro-role during garbage time.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 34.9m
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

Despite a notable dip in shooting efficiency compared to his recent hot streak, his overall impact remained positive (+4.2) due to strong defensive metrics (+5.3). He compensated for the clunky shooting night by stabilizing the perimeter and keeping the offense flowing through his playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 34.9m -16.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zach LaVine 30.1m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.9

A disastrous -15.9 overall impact was fueled by forced jumpers and a complete inability to connect from beyond the arc. Without his usual scoring gravity to warp the floor, the offense stagnated during his minutes, leading to a deep negative box score metric. His lackluster off-ball movement allowed the defense to easily key in on his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 30.1m -14.3
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
7
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite defensive metrics (+8.0) and aggressive rebounding from the guard spot nearly offset the damage from his erratic perimeter shooting. His overall score dipped into the red primarily due to offensive stagnation when defenders blatantly sagged off his outside attempts. However, his sheer physical force in transition kept the second unit competitive during muddy stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 29.6m -14.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Elite hustle metrics (+4.2) and consistent rim pressure drove a stellar +9.3 overall impact score. He extended his recent streak of highly efficient shooting by dominating the paint and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. This relentless activity level on both ends of the floor completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 26.2m -12.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Drew Eubanks 22.6m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

A massive +5.0 hustle rating salvaged a low-usage offensive outing to keep his overall impact in the green. He provided excellent rim deterrence (+4.0 Def) during his rotation minutes, altering shots and setting hard screens to free up shooters. This blue-collar shift perfectly illustrates how high-energy bigs can positively influence a game without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 22.6m -10.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.5

A massive spike in scoring volume masked a highly inefficient, ball-stopping performance that ultimately tanked his overall impact (-9.5). He forced a staggering number of low-quality jumpers, particularly from beyond the arc, which allowed the opponent to consistently ignite their transition game. The negative defensive rating further highlights how his poor offensive decisions compromised the team's transition defense.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 31.8m -14.9
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Malik Monk 27.2m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Excellent shot selection and perimeter spacing drove a highly productive +11.0 box score impact. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by hunting clean catch-and-shoot opportunities rather than forcing contested drives into traffic. His timely perimeter shot-making completely shifted the momentum during a crucial second-half run.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 27.2m -12.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Saw a sharp drop in usage compared to his recent offensive surge, but maintained a slightly positive impact through highly efficient shot selection. He didn't force the issue when the defense took away his primary actions, settling for high-percentage looks instead. This disciplined approach yielded a solid +7.5 box score impact despite the reduced volume.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 18.6m -8.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 10.6m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A steep drop-off from his recent offensive production dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid rotational minutes. While he provided strong point-of-attack defense (+3.7), his inability to knock down open perimeter looks cramped the floor for the second unit. He simply couldn't find an offensive rhythm, missing crucial momentum-swinging shots that derailed promising possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 10.6m -5.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Completely vanished in his brief stint, failing to register a single statistical contribution after being a reliable double-digit scorer over his last four games. The -5.5 impact reflects a total lack of offensive involvement and passive defensive rotations that compromised the scheme. He was effectively a ghost on the floor, allowing the opposition to play five-on-four.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 8.3m -3.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1