GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 37.2m
20
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Crisp perimeter shooting and active defensive hands surprisingly resulted in a negative overall rating. He was unfortunately on the floor during the opponent's most lethal transition runs, absorbing the brunt of the lineup's collective defensive collapse. Those structural breakdowns masked what was otherwise a highly efficient individual showing.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 37.2m -21.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 36.8m
23
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.9

Timely playmaking and active defensive hands kept his impact in the green, even as his scoring volume dipped from his recent torrid pace. He expertly managed the clock during late-game possessions, ensuring the offense executed its sets rather than rushing shots. This mature, floor-general approach provided steady value beyond pure scoring.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 36.8m -21.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 36.6m
44
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+25.1

Absolute offensive mastery dictated this performance, as he systematically dismantled double-teams with pinpoint passing and unstoppable post moves. His ability to manipulate the defense from the high post generated a staggering volume of high-quality looks for himself and others. This dominant offensive clinic completely overwhelmed the opposition and drove a monstrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 16/28 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 37.4%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +43.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +46.1
Avg player in 36.6m -21.0
Impact +25.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 34.2m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

Despite finding a great rhythm from beyond the arc, his overall impact cratered due to costly defensive breakdowns in transition. He frequently over-helped in the paint, leaving shooters wide open during a crucial fourth-quarter run. The efficient scoring profile ultimately couldn't salvage the structural damage caused by those rotational errors.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 34.2m -19.7
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Spencer Jones 23.5m
1
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

An inability to stay in front of his assignment at the point of attack severely compromised the team's defensive shell. He was relentlessly targeted in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding value every time he was isolated on an island. While he showed flashes of hustle, his complete lack of offensive threat made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 23.5m -13.5
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 26.8m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.1

Forced drives into heavy traffic and clanked perimeter looks completely derailed his offensive rhythm. His inability to finish at the rim allowed the defense to sag off and clog the passing lanes for his teammates. Snapping a long streak of efficient performances, this erratic shot selection resulted in a devastatingly low impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 26.8m -15.4
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock severely stunted the team's offensive flow. He was repeatedly targeted on defense, struggling to navigate off-ball screens and giving up easy driving lanes. The combination of empty offensive possessions and defensive liabilities dragged his rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 26.1m -15.0
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Stepping out to the perimeter for ill-advised jumpers neutralized his typical physical advantage in the paint. While he provided some resistance at the rim defensively, his inability to secure contested defensive boards allowed crucial second-chance points. Those subtle interior lapses kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 11.2m -6.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

A lack of aggression and minimal off-ball movement rendered him mostly invisible during his brief time on the court. He passed up a couple of open looks, stalling the offensive momentum in the second unit. Without generating any tangible hustle plays, his passive approach resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 7.5m -4.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 36.5m
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Elite two-way engagement defined this outing, with massive hustle and defensive metrics pushing his impact score near the top of the roster. He effectively neutralized his primary assignment on the perimeter, turning defensive stops into transition opportunities. That relentless energy on both ends of the floor maximized his value well beyond his perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +7.3
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 36.5m -20.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 35.8m
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Poor perimeter shot selection dragged down his overall rating, negating what was actually a surprisingly stout defensive performance. He settled for contested looks late in the shot clock rather than pressuring the rim. Those empty offensive possessions ultimately outweighed his positive contributions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 35.8m -20.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 30.7m
17
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

High-level defensive rotations and consistent hustle metrics drove a solid positive impact despite a slight dip in his usual scoring volume. His disciplined shot selection from the midrange anchored the half-court offense during key stretches. The veteran's ability to generate value without dominating the ball kept the overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 30.7m -17.6
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
21
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+7.0

Breaking out of a recent offensive slump, relentless downhill attacks generated high-value looks at the rim and collapsed the defense. His ability to dictate the tempo in transition completely shifted the game's momentum during the second half. While his defensive metrics were modest, the sheer force of his offensive initiation drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 29.8m -17.0
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Drew Eubanks 21.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Operating as an energetic rim-runner, his impact was heavily buoyed by active hustle plays and solid interior contests. He consistently sealed off the paint during his second-unit shifts, preventing easy penetration. This low-maintenance, high-effort approach yielded a highly efficient return on his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 21.6m -12.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 26.0m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock severely damaged his overall offensive efficiency. A stagnant stretch in the third quarter highlighted his struggle to create separation against physical perimeter defense. Without his usual playmaking to fall back on, the erratic shot selection resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 26.0m -14.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Generating extra possessions through sheer physicality, his overall value was heavily anchored by elite hustle metrics. He fully embraced a gritty, blue-collar role in the frontcourt, setting bruising screens that freed up the guards. Even with a sharp drop in offensive volume, his motor kept him firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 23.6m -13.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.7

Flawless perimeter execution and lethal shot-making off the dribble resulted in an astronomical impact score for his limited court time. He completely dismantled the opposing drop coverage during a blistering second-quarter stretch. This explosive offensive surge masked otherwise pedestrian defensive and hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +53.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 18.4m -10.5
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Defensive lapses and a lack of overall engagement quickly tanked his rating during a brief rotational appearance. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding points that his minimal offensive involvement couldn't offset. The steep drop-off from his recent production was evident in his hesitant decision-making.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.4
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 9.1m -5.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

A brief but effective stint was characterized by decisive cuts to the basket and fundamentally sound positioning. He maintained his recent streak of high-percentage looks by refusing to force action outside of the offensive flow. This disciplined approach ensured a net-positive result despite the drastic reduction in playing time.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 8.4m -4.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0