GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.6m
28
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
+15.5

Masterful orchestration of the offense and elite two-way versatility drove a dominant statistical profile. His ability to collapse the defense and spray passes to shooters created a massive positive swing, while his length suffocated opponents on the other end. He dictated the tempo of the game from the opening tip to the final horn.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.8
Raw total +37.2
Avg player in 39.6m -21.7
Impact +15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.9

Provided essential secondary creation, using his perimeter shooting to punish defensive rotations. While the offensive production was stellar, his modest overall impact suggests he struggled slightly to contain dribble penetration on the other end. A strong scoring punch that was somewhat diluted by defensive slippage during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 38.6m -21.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 35.7m
22
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.9

Relentless rim pressure and elite disruption in the passing lanes fueled a massive positive impact. His sky-high hustle rating highlights a game defined by deflections, loose ball recoveries, and transition scoring. He completely overwhelmed his matchups through sheer physical exertion and intelligent cutting.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +7.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 35.7m -19.5
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 34.8m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-volume interior scoring masked some glaring inefficiencies and defensive trade-offs. While he bullied his way to points in the paint, his struggles to finish cleanly and secure defensive stops resulted in a completely flat net impact. He gave back almost exactly as much as he produced on the scoreboard.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 34.8m -19.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

A relatively quiet offensive night was salvaged by disciplined defensive positioning and timely hustle plays. He didn't force the issue when his shot wasn't falling, instead focusing on moving the ball and maintaining spacing. The neutral impact score reflects a player who simply kept the gears turning without shifting the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 21.6m -11.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.0

An absolute black hole on offense whose extreme passivity allowed defenders to aggressively double-team his teammates. Logging heavy rotation minutes while completely refusing to look at the basket severely handicapped the team's spacing and flow. The catastrophic negative impact score is a direct penalty for playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 4.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 32.3m -17.6
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Solid rim protection metrics were undercut by a lack of offensive awareness and poor spacing. He frequently clogged the driving lanes, making it difficult for the primary creators to operate. The negative overall impact points to offensive stagnation whenever he was anchored in the half-court set.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 17.1m -9.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Injected immediate life into the second unit with decisive drives and confident perimeter shooting. He capitalized on defensive lapses, providing a highly efficient scoring burst that stabilized the rotation. A perfectly executed bench role where he took what the defense gave him without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 15.9m -8.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Asa Newell 4.5m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Struggled to catch up to the speed of the game during a brief cameo appearance. Missed rotations and a lack of physical presence allowed opponents to exploit his side of the floor. A quick hook from the coaching staff prevented further damage to the team's defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 4.5m -2.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Collin Sexton 36.1m
22
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Empty calorie scoring defined this outing, as his total impact fell into the red despite efficient finishing inside the arc. Poor perimeter execution and negative defensive value allowed opponents to easily trade baskets against him. The high hustle metrics couldn't overcome the structural damage caused by his defensive lapses on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense -0.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 36.1m -19.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 35.3m
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

Brutal shot selection from beyond the arc completely neutralized his scoring volume. Wasting possessions on low-quality jumpers tanked his overall impact despite decent defensive metrics. He settled for contested looks rather than attacking the rim where he is most effective.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.9
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 35.3m -19.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 34.5m
28
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Elite perimeter shot-making drove a massive offensive rating spike. A relentless barrage from deep stretched the defense to its breaking point, while solid hustle metrics kept his overall impact deeply in the green. He put on a true floor-spacing clinic that opened up the paint for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 34.5m -18.9
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sion James 32.2m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.3

A severe lack of offensive aggression and poor spacing gravity cratered his net impact during his minutes. While he managed a slight scoring bump compared to recent struggles, his inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to load up elsewhere. The deeply negative total score points to costly rotational mistakes or turnovers that the raw box score hides.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 32.2m -17.6
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mason Plumlee 23.0m
6
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.0

Perfect execution in a low-usage role allowed him to anchor the interior effectively. His massive defensive rating reflects excellent rim deterrence and disciplined positioning rather than chasing blocks. He played exactly within his limitations, securing extra possessions without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.4%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 23.0m -12.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.3

Flawless finishing around the basket and relentless glass-cleaning generated a massive positive swing. He capitalized on every dump-off pass and anchored the paint with highly disciplined defensive rotations. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient performances, he dominated the interior without needing a single play called for his number.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 25.4m -13.9
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 16.8m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.6

Completely out of rhythm, forcing contested looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His inability to find the bottom of the net dragged down the entire second unit's offensive flow. A stark negative impact score reflects empty possessions and a failure to create separation off the dribble.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.2
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Struggled to adapt to the game's physicality, resulting in rushed perimeter attempts and minimal defensive resistance. The negative impact stems from an inability to stay in front of his man, forcing teammates into constant rotation. He simply couldn't find a way to contribute when his initial shot actions were denied.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 15.3m -8.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
KJ Simpson 11.9m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Provided a brief but stabilizing spark off the bench through aggressive point-of-attack defense. His ability to disrupt opposing ball-handlers generated a solid defensive rating in limited action. A highly efficient, low-mistake stint that kept the rotation afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 11.9m -6.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Failed to register any meaningful offensive gravity, bricking all of his perimeter attempts during a brief stint. His minutes were mostly cardio, as he was unable to leverage his size to create advantages or secure loose balls. The slight negative impact is a direct result of wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 9.5m -5.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0