GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.8m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.9

A brutal shooting night defined by forced mid-range jumpers and an inability to create separation against physical coverage. While he competed hard defensively and disrupted passing lanes, his offensive inefficiency was a massive anchor on the team's momentum. Wasting possessions on contested isolation looks ultimately doomed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 35.8m -19.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 33.7m
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.2

Imposed his will on both ends of the floor, using his size to bully mismatches in the paint and generate high-percentage looks. His defensive versatility was the linchpin of the rotation, seamlessly switching across multiple positions to blow up opponent actions. A relentless motor on 50/50 balls ensured his team won the possession battle.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 33.7m -18.0
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
13
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Pushed the tempo and generated chaos with his hustle, but erratic decision-making and missed reads in the half-court dragged his score into the negative. Settling for contested floaters rather than attacking the rim compromised the team's offensive efficiency. Despite his high energy, the hidden costs of poor possession management outweighed his scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +5.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 30.4m -16.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Provided a crucial spark as a floor-spacing big, pulling rim protectors away from the basket to open up driving lanes. However, his overall impact was heavily mitigated by defensive shortcomings, as he struggled to anchor the paint against downhill slashers. His offensive fluidity kept the scoreboard ticking, even as he gave points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 26.6m -14.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 20.1m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Capitalized on aggressive downhill drives to draw fouls and score efficiently within the flow of the offense. His decisive shot selection prevented the ball from sticking, allowing the unit to maintain a brisk pace. Solid positional defense and timely closeouts rounded out a highly productive, focused stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Shead 23.8m
11
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.5

Orchestrated the offense brilliantly, constantly collapsing the defense to create wide-open looks for shooters. While his own shot wasn't falling, his elite point-of-attack defense and ball pressure disrupted the opponent's rhythm. A true floor general's performance where passing vision and grit far outweighed shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 23.8m -12.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 19.8m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Stretched the floor effectively, forcing defenders to stay glued to the perimeter and opening up the middle. His quick trigger on spot-up attempts punished late rotations during key transition sequences. Held up surprisingly well in team defensive concepts, ensuring he wasn't a target on switches.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 19.8m -10.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.1

Delivered a masterclass in off-ball movement, punishing the defense with lethal catch-and-shoot execution. His blistering efficiency from deep completely flipped the momentum of the second quarter. By staying within his role and avoiding forced plays, he maximized his value as a pure scoring release valve.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 114.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 19.2m -10.3
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Operated strictly as a garbage man, diving for loose balls and setting bruising screens to free up the guards. His complete lack of offensive ambition meant defenders could totally ignore him, clogging the paint for his teammates. Broke even on the night by balancing his offensive invisibility with sheer physical effort.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.4%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 17.1m -9.1
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 13.7m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Failed to make an impact defensively, consistently getting beat off the dribble and forcing the defense into scramble mode. His offensive contributions were negated by poor spacing and an inability to convert from the perimeter. A step slow on closeouts, he was repeatedly targeted by opposing wings.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 13.7m -7.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Noah Clowney 37.1m
22
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Bricking six attempts from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive efficiency, tanking his net impact despite solid defensive metrics. His willingness to battle in the trenches generated positive hustle value, but the poor shot selection from deep was a possession-killer. Opponents sagged off him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and stalling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 37.1m -19.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
25
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-volume perimeter scoring anchored a massive offensive rating, but his overall impact was dragged down by empty possessions. Careless ball security likely bled points in transition, significantly undercutting his elite shot-making. His ability to stretch the floor was undeniable, yet the hidden costs of his offensive execution limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 32.7m -17.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 31.3m
10
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Anchored the interior with highly efficient finishing around the rim, though his overall impact was muted by potential foul trouble or turnovers. His defensive presence deterred drives and altered shots in the paint, creating a reliable backbone for the unit. A steady diet of pick-and-roll rim runs maximized his value without demanding excess touches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 31.3m -16.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 28.1m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.3

Offensive rhythm was completely derailed by a barrage of forced, contested jumpers that resulted in a dismal shooting night. Even though he stayed engaged with active hands on defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions cratered his net score. His shot selection bailed out the opposing defense time and time again.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 28.1m -15.0
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Terance Mann 20.8m
3
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.7

A complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him, suffocating the team's spacing. While he kept the ball moving, his passivity and negative defensive impact created a glaring weak link in the rotation. His inability to punish closeouts made him a liability during key stretches of the second half.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 20.8m -11.1
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Provided excellent point-of-attack defense and high-energy rotations, but his offensive invisibility dragged his overall rating into the red. Fading into the background on offense meant the team essentially played four-on-five on that end of the floor. A lack of playmaking or aggressive cutting left too much value on the table.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 28.2m -15.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
26
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.8

Caught fire from the perimeter, stretching the defense to its breaking point with elite shot-making. His two-way dominance was the defining factor of the game, as he paired his offensive explosion with suffocating perimeter defense. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, he consistently punished late closeouts to drive a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 24.9m -13.4
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite converting his few looks at the rim, a high rate of defensive lapses or foul costs likely plummeted his net rating. He battled hard in the paint to secure extra possessions, but his heavy-footed pick-and-roll coverage was routinely exploited. The inability to defend in space made him a situational liability.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 16.7m -9.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Drake Powell 14.5m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Struggled to stay in front of his man, bleeding points on the defensive end and erasing his modest offensive contributions. A lack of physical engagement on the glass and loose ball situations further depressed his value. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, exposing his slow lateral rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 14.5m -7.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief, largely invisible stint where he failed to register any meaningful hustle stats or defensive stops. He hit his only shot, but his lack of off-ball movement or rebounding presence rendered his minutes hollow. Was quickly subbed out after failing to impact the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0