GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 37.6m
24
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.6

A rare off-night shooting the basketball was mitigated by a surprisingly stout defensive effort and high-level playmaking. Rather than forcing the issue against double teams, he consistently made the right reads to keep the offense humming. His willingness to compete on the less glamorous end of the floor ensured he remained a positive force despite the missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 37.6m -19.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 13.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 35.5m
25
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Unrelenting offensive aggression paid off, as his sheer volume of perimeter attempts eventually broke down the defensive scheme. He paired this trigger-happy approach with suffocating point-of-attack defense, generating immense hustle value by blowing up dribble handoffs. Even with a high number of missed shots, his relentless two-way motor drove a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +6.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 35.5m -18.7
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 33.7m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Despite knocking down his perimeter looks at a high clip, his time on the floor coincided with massive opponent runs. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, constantly requiring help that compromised the entire defensive shell. The floor spacing he provided was completely overshadowed by the defensive breakdowns that occurred on his watch.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 33.7m -17.8
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Goodwin 33.0m
15
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

Wreaked havoc on the defensive end, utilizing active hands and relentless pressure to completely disrupt the opponent's backcourt rhythm. This defensive intensity fueled his transition game, allowing him to attack the rim before the defense could set. His relentless motor and two-way playmaking were the primary catalysts for his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.4
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 33.0m -17.4
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mark Williams 28.6m
14
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.8

Utterly dominated the painted area, combining elite rim protection with ruthless efficiency as a roll man. His ability to consistently secure extra possessions through sheer physical hustle completely demoralized the opposing frontcourt. This masterful interior performance anchored the team on both ends, resulting in a massive positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +6.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 28.6m -15.0
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.2

Seized his opportunity with aggressive perimeter shooting, punishing defenders who dared to go under screens. He pushed the pace effectively, creating early-clock advantages that kept the defense scrambling. This confident orchestration of the offense was the driving force behind his highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 30.2m -16.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Thrived in a specialized role, utilizing crisp rotations and excellent closeouts to generate immense defensive value. He didn't demand the ball, instead focusing entirely on spacing the floor and blowing up passing lanes. This disciplined, low-mistake approach perfectly complemented the primary scorers and drove a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 18.8m -9.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 17.6m
2
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Completely abandoned his recent scoring aggression to focus entirely on facilitating and anchoring the defense. His value came entirely from setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless defensive switches on the perimeter. By embracing this gritty, glue-guy role, he managed to heavily influence winning without needing to look at the basket.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 17.6m -9.2
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A brief and disjointed appearance was marred by rushed attempts in the paint against set defenses. He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to low-quality hooks that failed to draw iron. The inability to finish inside quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 5.1m -2.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Harrison Barnes 34.8m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

A noticeable scoring bump from his recent slump wasn't enough to pull his overall impact out of the red. While he graded out decently on the defensive end, his lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint. He settled for contested mid-range looks rather than pressuring the rim, limiting his overall offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 34.8m -18.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 33.4m
26
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Incredible foul-drawing ability inflated his scoring volume, but defensive lapses kept his net impact hovering just below neutral. He struggled to stay in front of his primary matchup at the point of attack, giving back much of the value he generated offensively. Relying heavily on the whistle rather than creating for others ultimately capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 33.4m -17.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 33.2m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

An aggressive scoring mentality yielded better raw production, but his struggles inside the arc dragged down his overall efficiency. He routinely settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups, which stalled out several offensive possessions. Even with solid defensive grading, those empty trips prevented him from making a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 33.2m -17.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite strong defensive metrics and excellent work on the glass, his overall impact plunged into the negative due to a brutal shooting night. Bricking a heavy volume of catch-and-shoot looks from the perimeter severely hampered the offensive flow. His defensive engagement kept him on the floor, but the wasted possessions were ultimately too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 32.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 30.1m -15.8
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 27.5m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Flawless shot selection around the basket continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of highly efficient performances. He anchored the interior effectively, generating a strong defensive rating by altering shots without fouling. This low-usage, high-reliability role perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 27.5m -14.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Exceptional shot selection and blistering perimeter efficiency masked a surprisingly neutral overall footprint. While he capitalized on every offensive opportunity, his off-ball defensive awareness wavered, giving up crucial backdoor cuts. The scoring punch was undeniable, but the inability to string together stops kept his net rating slightly underwater.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 25.3m -13.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Continued his streak of highly efficient finishing around the rim, yet his overall impact slipped into the red. Defensive rotations were a step slow, allowing easy driving lanes that negated his offensive contributions. He specifically struggled to navigate screens effectively, making him a target during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.0m -11.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kelly Olynyk 14.1m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

A completely disjointed stint saw him bleed value rapidly, resulting in a staggering negative impact in limited minutes. His inability to connect on any of his perimeter looks allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. Without his usual playmaking from the elbows to compensate, his presence actively hindered the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 14.1m -7.3
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Active hands and solid defensive positioning couldn't salvage a disastrous offensive showing. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock completely derailed the second unit's momentum. His defensive hustle was commendable, but the wasted offensive possessions made him a severe net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 13.0m -6.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a sudden offensive spark off the bench, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to find open looks. He showed no hesitation letting it fly from deep, bending the defense during a brief but impactful first-half stint. This aggressive mindset translated to a slight positive impact despite the limited run.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 7.8m -4.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0